19960114 Ver 1_Complete File_19960205

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 'J t { ; 4
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
February 1, 1996
f
t}
0 0.
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:

F E B 0 1996
SUBJECT: Forsyth County, Widening of NC 150 from the Davidson County Line
to Existing Multi-lanes in Winston-Salem, Federal Aid Project
No. STP-150(1), State Aid Project No. 8.1622901, T.I.P. No. R-2709.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the
above referenced project. The project involves widening NC 150 to a
multi-lane facility from the existing multi-lanes near the Davidson County
Line to the multi-lane section in Winston-Salem. Construction of the
proposed project will not affect jurisdictional wetlands.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as
a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore,
we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed
under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A (B-23). The
provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate the 401 General Certification will apply to this project,
and are providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Department of
Environmental Management, for their review.
N_;
February 1, 1996
Page 2
If you have any questions or need additional information please call
Ms. Alice N. Gordon at 733-7844 Ext. 314.
Sincerely,
. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/rfm
cc: w/attachment
Mr. John Thomas, Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Department of Environmental Management
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. e., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr.' Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. B. Waters, P. E., Division 9 Engineer
Mr. Richard L. Brewer, P. E., P & E Project Planning Engineer
NC 150
From Multi-lanes near Davidson County Line
To Existing Multi-lanes in Winston-Salem
Forsyth County
Federal Aid Project STP-150(1)
State Project No. 8.1622901
TIP No. R-2709
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
S-
a H. Franklin Vic P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Date N as L. Gra P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
NC 150
From Multi-lanes near Davidson County Line
To Existing Multi-lanes in Winston-Salem
Forsyth County
Federal Aid Project STP-150(1)
State Project No. 8.1622901
TIP No. R-2709
1
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
December 1995
Documentation Prepared in the Planning & Environmental Branch by:
Wiz,
Kicnara L. Brewer, N. t.
Project Planning Engineer
.•`'?ZH CAROJ
?r'• ?'?••??ESSIR.6% IS
3 f4 SEAL
20115
•? T°?'•?NOI
#lot
Teresa mart
Project Planning Unit Head
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
Environmental Commitments ................................. 1
Description of the Proposed Action ......................... 1
A. General Description .................................. 1
B. Historical Resume and Project Status ................. 1
Need for the Proposed Project ............................ 1
A. Existing Roadway .................................... 1
B. Traffic Volumes .................................... 2
C. Capacity Analysis ................................... 2
D. Accident Analysis ................................... 3
E. Thoroughfare Plan ................................... 3
Recommendations for the Proposed Improvement ............. 4
A. Recommended Location and Cross-Section .............. 4
B. Recommended Highway Design Elements ................. 4
C. Bridges/Culverts .................................... 4
D. Wetlands/Permits ............................... 5
E. Maintenance of Traffic .............................. 5
F. Estimate of Costs .................................... 5
Alternatives to the Proposed Action ...................... 6
A. 4-Lane Divided Section .............................. 6
B. 5-lane Section .. ................................ 6
C. "No-Build" Alternative .............................. 6
Effects to the Environment ................................ 7
A. Land Use ............................................. 7
1. Status of Local Planning Activities ............. 7
2. Existing Land Use ............................... 7
3. Future Land Use ................................. 7
4. Farmland ........................................ 8
B. Socioeconomic Impacts ................................ 8
1. Neighborhood Characteristics .................... 8
2. Economic Factors ................................ 8
3. Public Facilities .............................. 9
4. Social Impacts... ....... .. .............. 10
5. Relocation of Residences and Businesses ........ 10
C. Historic and Cultural Resources ...................... 12
1. Archaeological Resources ........................ 12
2. Architectural/Historical Resources .............. 12
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
D. Natural Resources .................................... 13
1. Project Area .................................... 13
2. Methodology ..................................... 13
3. Physical Resources .............................. 14
a. Geology.. .... . ..................... 14
b. Physiography and Soils ..................... 14
C. Water Resources ............................ 15
4. Biotic Resources ................................ 19
a. Plant Communities .......................... 19
b. Terrestrial Fauna .......................... 23
C. Aquatic Life.. ........... .. .......... 25
d. Anticipated Biotic Resource Impacts........ 25
5. Special Topics ............................... 27
a. Jurisdictional Waters of the U. S.......... 27
b. Rare and Protected Species ................. 29
E. Traffic Noise ........................................ 31
1. General. ... . ......................... 31
2. Characteristics of Noise ........................ 32
3. Noise Abatement Criteria ........................ 33
4. Ambient Noise Levels.. ......... ..... .... 33
5. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels.... 34
6. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis ................... 35
a. Highway Alignment .......................... 35
b. Traffic System Management Measures......... 36
C. Noise Barriers ............................. 36
7. "No Build" Alternative ......................... 37
8. Construction Noise .............................. 37
9. Summary ......................................... 37
F. Air Quality.......................... ............... 37
G. Geology and Hazardous Materials Evaluation........... 40
1. Physiography, Relief and Drainage ............... 40
2. Geology and Soils ............................... 40
3. Mineral Resources ............................... 41
4. Erosion Control ................................. 41
5. Groundwater... ............................. 41
6. Hazardous Materials Inventory ................... 41
7. Landfills....................................... 42
8. Other Potentially Contaminated Properties....... 43
VI. Conclusions ............................................... 43
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TABLES
Table 1 - ESTIMATED LEVEL OF SERVICE ON NC 150 ............. 3
Table 2 - ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS .......................... 5
Table 3 - WATER RESOURCES POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND
ENCROACHMENTS ................................... 18
Table 4 - AREA ESTIMATES OF COMMUNITY AND LAND TYPES
" IMPACTED UNDER R/W.............................. 27
Table 5 - FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES IN FORSYTH

Table
6 COUNTY... ... ....... .. .... ..... .. ........
- FEDERAL CANDIDATE AND STATE LISTED SPECIES 29
FOR FORSYTH COUNTY .............................. 31
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Aerial View of Project Area
Figure 3 - 1999 and 2019 Average Daily Traffic
Figure 4 - Wetlands
APPENDIX
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All planning, design and construction procedures and practices will
be employed and implemented in such a manner as to avoid and minimize
environmental impacts. Impacts will be minimized by the employment of
Best Management Practices.
NCDOT will conduct the necessary coordination with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission as required
per the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 USC 661 et
seq.), with regard to stream modifications. Stream modifications will be
minor; and they will mimic natural conditions such as channel slope, water
velocity, and flow.
NCDOT will make every possible effort to design the bridge over South
Fork Muddy Creek to accommodate the future planned greenway.
With six residential relocations on this project, the NCDOT is
currently preparing a Relocation Report that will be completed and
distributed by an Addendum to this CE.
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways, proposes to improve NC 150 from the multi-lane section near the
Davidson County line to the existing multi-lanes in Winston-Salem (see
Figures 1 and 2). The purpose of the project is to meet increasing
traffic demands on the roadway, and to minimize delays on this congested
part of NC 150. This section is an important north/south link between
Winston-Salem and several communities in south Forsyth and north Davidson
Counties. Local officials expect land to develop at a fast rate. Through
and turning traffic from adjacent development and sidestreets will be
benefitted by these improvements.
The project involves widening NC 150 to a multi-lane facility, from
the existing multi-lanes near the Davidson County Line to the multi-lane
section in Winston-Salem. Figure 1 illustrates the project location, and
Figure 2 shows an aerial view of the immediate project area.
The NCDOT 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes
this project. The acquisition of right of way begins in Federal Fiscal
Year (FFY) 1997. Construction starts in FFY 1998. The current estimated
cost of this project is $5,300,000. The 1996-2002 TIP estimate is
$6,500,000.
Planning and environmental studies have determined that this project
will not have a significant adverse effect on the natural environment.
The proposed project will not create any changes in route classification
or land use, and the project is not controversial in nature. The project
has been coordinated with the appropriate state, federal, and local
agencies. Therefore, a Categorical Exclusion is applicable.
B. Historical Resume and Project Status
Division 9 of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
initiated this project. This area of Winston-Salem is largely undeveloped
but growing at a rapid pace. Accordingly, traffic is growing at a steady
rate and NCDOT forecasts predict the trend to continue. NC 150 is an
important link between Winston-Salem and growing areas to the south. To
accommodate for the anticipated growth in development and traffic, NCDOT
plans to widen the facility to a multi-lane section.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Existing Roadwa
Existing NC 150 is a 2-lane highway consisting of 7.2 meters (m)
(24 feet) of pavement and 1.8 to 2.4 m (6 to 8-foot) grass shoulders. The
current right of way is 61 m (200 feet), offset to the west of the
existing 2-lane roadway [39 m (127 feet) west, and 22 m (73 feet) east of
the existing centerline]. NC 150 does not have access control, and this
feature of the road will not change. The horizontal and vertical
alignments are considered good by today's design standards and the
existing posted speed limit is 90 kilometers per hour (km/h) (55 miles per
2
intersecting the project are at grade and there are none under traffic
signal control. This segment of NC 150 is a key element of the
Winston-Salem Urban Area Plan, and the Functional Classification System
classifies the road as an Urban Major Arterial.
B. Traffic Volumes
Traffic in 1993 ranged from 12,000 vehicles per day (vpd) near the
southern end to 14,000 vpd near the northern project limit. NCDOT
estimates show traffic growing to 18,400 vpd by 1999, and up to 34,800 by
2019. Figure 3 shows average daily traffic volumes for the years 1999 and
2019, turning movements, design hourly volume (DHV) percentage, and
percentages of trucks.
C. Capacity Analysis
Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing
operational conditions within a traffic stream and how motorists and/or
passengers perceive these conditions. A LOS definition generally
describes these conditions in terms of speed, travel time, freedom to
maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Six
levels of service, with letter designations from A (best) to F (worst),
represent operations for each type of facility for which analysis
procedures are available.
Level of Service A, the highest level of service, is characterized by
very low delay in which most vehicles do not stop at all. Typically,
drivers are unrestricted and turns are freely made. In level of service
B, traffic operation is stable but more vehicles are stopping and causing
higher levels of delay. Level of service C is characterized by stable
operation with drivers occasionally having to wait through more than one
red indication. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted in these
circumstances. At level of service D, the influence of congestion becomes
more noticeable. Delay to approaching vehicles may be substantial during
short periods of the peak hour. Level of service E is considered to be
the limit of acceptable delay and represents the theoretical capacity of
the facility. Level of service F represents over saturated or jammed
conditions which are considered unacceptable to most drivers.
Link analyses determined the LOS for the years 1993, 1999, and 2019
for NC 150. Building a 5-lane or 4-lane facility was compared with a
no-build option of keeping the road 2-lanes wide in future years. To
learn the worst-case scenario, DOT analyzed the highest-volume section for
each of the studied years. For each year, this section is north of Sides
Road (SR 2932). All other sections of the highway will operate at this
LOS or better. Table 1 shows the expected build and no-build levels of
service.
The analysis shows that 1993 traffic is operating at capacity for a
2-lane highway. With the widening of NC 150 (to either a 5-lane or 4-lane
facility), traffic operations will improve and will remain acceptable
.through 2019, the project's design year. Conversely, not building the
project will result in rapidly deteriorating traffic conditions through
the period. Congestion and accident potential will go up as traffic
increases.
3
TABLE
ESTIMATED LEVEL OF
North of Sides
ALTERNATIVE 1993
BUILD 5-LANE ---
BUILD 4-LANE ---
NO-BUILD (2-LANE)
D. Accident Analysis
1
SERVICE ON NC 150
Road (SR 2932)
1999 2019
B D
B D
NCDOT Traffic Engineering Branch provided an accident analysis for
the subject roadway for the period from January 1, 1991 through
December 31, 1993. During this three-year period, 44 accidents occurred
along the project, with one fatality. Additionally, the most predominant
type of accident that occurred was the rear-end type due to failure to
stop or slow down in time. The calculated total accident rate for this
stretch of highway was 61.44 accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometers
(acc/100 mvkm) [98.88 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles
(acc/100mvm)]. This rate is nearly 50% less than the 1991-1993 average
statewide rate for rural 2-lane highways, which is 121.48 acc/100mvkm
(195.5 acc/100mvm).
The additional through-lane in each direction will allow for safer
conditions by an increase in capacity. The improvement in capacity lowers
vehicle density and increases average headway. Therefore, the frequency
and length of acceptable gaps for drivers turning onto or off of NC 150
will increase. A two-way left turn lane provided in the 5-lane
alternative has proven to be a safety enhancement for accident-prone
streets that do not provide exclusive turning lanes.
A 4-lane highway with a divided median can generally be an even safer
facility. The number of points where left-turning traffic can occur is
reduced by the physical barrier of the grass median. This number of
access points is much less than the number available with a 5-lane
facility. The left-turn movements on NC 150 can be protected by
constructing exclusive turn lanes in the median at specified points.
E. Thoroughfare Plan
The Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Thoroughfare Plan, adopted by NCDOT
in October 1991, includes the subject project. NC 150 is a major
thoroughfare on this plan. The proposed project to widen NC 150, detailed
in the next section of this document, is in conformance with and is a step
toward the implementation of this thoroughfare plan.
4
III. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT
A. Recommended Location and Cross-Section
The 1996-2002 TIP calls for widening NC 150 to a multi-lane facility.
An aerial view of this project is displayed in Figure 2. The project runs
from the multi-lane section near the Davidson County Line to the existing
multi-lane section in Winston-Salem. The project length is 5.0 km (3.1
miles). The recommended cross-section for NC 150 is a 4-lane divided
roadway, with a 14 m (46-foot) median. 1.2 m (4-foot) wide paved
shoulders will be built adjacent to each travel lane.
Widening is recommended for the west side of the existing highway,
since the right of way [61 m (200 feet)] for NC 150 is already offset in
that direction. Most construction can be accomplished within the existing
right of way. However, some areas will require extensive earthwork and
additional right of way [5.54 hectares (2.24 acres)] and construction
easements [320 sq. m (3,444 sq. ft.)] will be required by NCDOT.
B. Recommended Highway Design Elements
The design speed will be in conformance with the existing horizontal
and vertical alignments, which will not be significantly altered. The
recommended design speed for NC 150 is 100 km/h (60 mph). Design speed is
a correlation of the physical features of a highway which influence
vehicle operation and reflects the degree of safety and mobility desired
along a highway. Design speed is not to be interpreted as the posted
speed limit.
The existing speed limit along NC 150 is 88 km/h (55 mph). The speed
limit is expected to remain 88 km/h (55 mph) on the new facility after
completion of the project.
All intersections on the proposed project are at grade. At present
there are no signalized intersections along this project. All side
streets intersecting NC 150 have and are projected to have very minor
volumes of traffic. Hence, no new signal installations are recommended
for this project.
There does not appear to be any special need for bicycle
accommodations on this project. This section of NC 150 in Forsyth County
does not correspond to a bicycle TIP request, nor is it a designated
bicycle route. At present NCDOT has no indication that there is an
unusual number of bicyclists on this roadway.
C. Bridges/Culverts
The widening of NC 150 to a 4-lane divided facility will require the
construction of a new structure at South Fork Muddy Creek. The existing
bridge has an estimated remaining life of 25 years and does not need
rehabilitation at this time. However, the bridge rails should be upgraded
to current standards. In addition, two reinforced concrete box culverts
carrying Leak Creek and one of its tributaries under NC 150 will need to
be lengthened.
5
D. Wetlands/Permits
in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit is required from the COE to discharge and place
fill materials into any wetlands affected by construction. It is
anticipated Nationwide Permits [33 CFR 330.5(a)(26)] which authorize
actions that have no significant environmental effect, such as dealing
with wetlands of small size [less than 0.1 ha (0.33 acre)] and short
bridge crossings [<61 m (<200 ft.)] will be applicable for this project.
Final discretionary authority for the type of permit rests with the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers. A 401 Water Quality Certification from the Water
Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management in the North
Carolina Department of Environment Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR)
will be required for fill activity in wetlands and surface waters where a
federal permit is required.
E. Maintenance of Traffic
Traffic will be maintained at all times during project construction.
The additional two lanes and median can be constructed with minimal
interference to the existing travel lanes. All traffic control devices on
this project shall conform to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD).
F. Estimate of Costs
The TIP cost estimate for the project is $4,960,000. This cost
includes $4,600,000 for construction and $360,000 for additional right of
way and/or easements. The planning cost estimate for the recommended
4-lane divided roadway is more detailed than the TIP estimate and is shown
in Table 2.
TABLE 2
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
COST ITEM
4-LANE DIVIDED
ROADWAY
Right of Way
Construction
Total
$ 360,000
$4,700,000
$5,060,000
The construction cost estimate includes engineering and
contingencies. The right of way estimate includes utility, relocation and
acquisition costs.
6
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. 4-lane divided Section
A 4-lane divided section, with a 14 m (46-foot) wide grass median, is
the recommended cross-section for this project. This 4-lane divided
section will provide continuity for NC 150 motorists since each end of the
project has a similar divided cross-section. A 4-lane divided roadway is
best-suited for this area, which is suburban/rural in nature. Access is
non-controlled, but driveways and intersecting sidestreets are remotely
spaced. Limiting future access is more easily achieved with a divided
highway than with, a 5-lane section that has a continuous turn lane (see
below). The estimated cost of the 4-lane alternative is $5,060,000.
B. 5-lane Section
The 5-lane facility with grass shoulders is the other build
alternative studied. This type of roadway is most often found in urban
and suburban areas, where there are numerous driveways and sidestreets
found on the thoroughfares. NC 150 in the project area is in a suburban
to rural-type setting and does not have a significant number of driveways
and sidestreets. This reduces the need for a continuous, center left-turn
lane. Furthermore, a 5-lane section would be inappropriate from a
functional perspective since the project links two existing 4-lane divided
sections. Because of these factors the 5-lane cross-section is not
recommended for this project. The estimated cost of the 5-lane roadway is
$4,910,000.
C. "No-Build" Alternative
Increasing travel demand in this developing area will soon be impeded
by growing congestion and accident problems if NC 150 is not improved
soon. As an urban major arterial, NC 150 is an essential part of the
Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Thoroughfare Plan. The "no-build"
alternative will hinder the implementation of this plan. For these
reasons, the "no-build" alternative is not practicable and is not
recommended for this project.
V. EFFECTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT
A. Land Use
1. Status of Local Planning Activities
The proposed improvement is located within the planning and
zoning jurisdiction of Forsyth County, except a few feet at the
project's southern terminus just inside the Davidson County line. A
portion of the project at its northern terminus is located within the
Winston-Salem Municipal Boundary. Winston-Salem and Forsyth County
operate a joint City-County Planning Board, which oversees an active
planning program. The Planning Board's Vision 2005 comprehensive
plan serves as the county's policy guidance document-for land use and
development. The Planning Board also enforces a zoning ordinance and
subdivision regulations.
2. Existing Land Use
The area of the proposed improvement is located within a
relatively rural area undergoing a period of transition to suburban
development. Several low density single family residential
developments have recently been constructed near the northern
terminus of the project. Wilshire Golf Course, a privately owned
facility, is located on the east side of the roadway, just south of
South Fork Muddy Creek.
Near the Davidson County line, the
pastures, and agriculture fields with
structures and mobile homes. Commercial
occurred around the project's southern
community. The Griffith Volunteer Fire
this area. A public sewer pump station
outside the municipal limits.
3. Future Land Use
land is a mix of woodlands,
scattered residential
and retail development has
terminus at the Griffith
Station is also located in
is located along NC 150 just
The Growth Management Plan contained within Vision 2005 divides
the county into six areas: Central Business District, Central Area,
Urban Area, Growth Area, Rural Area, and Conservation Area. Each
area has distinctive characteristics, and are treated as individual
planning units within the Growth Management Plan. The Growth Area
has been subdivided into Short-range and Long-range areas. The
County's effort at growth management is designed to ensure efficient
growth patterns rather than control the rate of growth.
The northern portion of the proposed improvement is located
within the Urban Area, designated in the Growth Management Plan. The
section from South Fork Muddy Creek to the municipal boundary is a
portion of the short-range planning Growth Area. The remainder of
the project is located within the long-range planning Growth Area.
The short-range growth area is currently or can easily be served by
public utilities, and growth is expected in the near
8
future. The long-range growth areas are on the outer boundaries of
the sewer service area and are therefore not as likely to see
development in the near term.
4. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal
agencies or their representatives to consider the impact of land
acquisition and construction projects on prime and important farmland
soils. Land which has been previously converted to non-agricultural
uses is exempt from the requirements of the Act. The proposed
improvement will occur within previously acquired highway right of
way. Therefore, no further consideration of farmland impacts is
required.
B. Socioeconomic Impacts
1. Neighborhood Characteristics
Forsyth County and Winston Salem, North Carolina are located in
the central section of the state. The county of Forsyth is bounded
by Guilford, Davidson, Davie, Yadkin, and Stokes Counties. The 1990
census data indicates that Forsyth County has a population of
265,878. The city of Winston Salem has a population of 143,485. The
population density (persons per square mile) of Forsyth County is
649.01. In terms of racial composition, the county has a population
of 196,918 whites, and nonwhite population of 68,960.
The proposed project begins south of Winston Salem on NC 150
near the Davidson County line and follows NC 150 to the north in the
direction of Winston Salem. The proposed widening will be on the
west side of existing highway facility NC 150. The neighborhood is
characterized by a mixture of institutional, commercial, and
residential development. Development along the proposed project
corridor is off of the 200-foot right of way.
2. Economic Factors
There are a few commercial establishments in the general
vicinity of the proposed project. There is a shopping center off of
the proposed project in Davidson County at Salisbury Road. But it
generates some of the traffic along NC 150 from the north. There is
a Wilco Service Station near the north end of the proposed project on
the east side of NC 150, just south of Twin Cedars Subdivision. The
proposed action will not adversely impact the economy.
The State Employment Security Commission indicates that for June
1994, Forsyth County had a labor force of 148,130. Out of this total,
142,172 persons were gainfully employed. This left an unemployment
total of 5,960, or 4.0 percent.
9
3. Public Facilities
There are several public facilities scattered at various
intervals along the proposed project site. On the southern end of
the proposed project near the Davidson County line is a vacant brick
church that is currently available for lease. It is located on the
eastern side of the existing highway facility. The Griffith
Volunteer Fire Department is north of SR 3021 (Friedburg Road),
situated on the west side of NC 150. There is a recycling plant in
close proximity to Griffith Volunteer Fire Department. A state
marker is in this general vicinity, indicating historical
significance of a Moravian church that was once located on or near
the site of the marker. Approximately half way the length of the
proposed project is the Wilshire Golf Course. It is on the east side
of the existing highway. North of Kestiven Road, on the east side of
NC 150, is a large brick church (Pinedale Christian Church). Grace
Baptist Church, another large brick building, is located just to the
north.
Section 4(f) Resources. Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act o 1966, as amended, allows the use of publicly
owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuge, or land of an historic site of national, state, or
local significance, only if there is no prudent and feasible
alternative to using the land and the proposed project includes all
possible planning to minimize harm to the resource.
The City-County Planning Board of Winston-Salem adopted a
Greenway Plan as an element of Vision 2005. The Plan proposed a
greenway along South Fork Muddy Cree c, w i ch is crossed by NC 150.
This greenway, when constructed, will serve the Atwood Shore Acres,
Pinedale Manor, Wilshire, and Union Ridge neighborhoods. It will
also provide access to the Wilshire Golf Course and the Strohs
Brewing Company. Its total length upon completion will be 26.9 km
(16.7 miles). The construction phases are one through three. The
South Fork Muddy Creek Greenway is a phase three project. Although
the County is currently acquiring easements for the greenway through
the subdivision approval and rezoning processes, it has not committed
public funds for construction at this time. However, the County does
request that consideration be given to allowing for pedestrian access
under NC 150 in the planning and design phases of this project.
Local planner Judy Hunt defined the South Fork Muddy Creek Greenway's
project status as possibly materializing within ten to fifteen years
under the phase three classification. The County's preferred
corridor crossing is to traverse underneath NC 150 at the existing
bridge location. According to preliminary estimates, there is
possibly adequate space for the greenway to cross beneath NC 150 at
the present road elevation. This is assuming that the proposed
widening will not lower the present road elevation of NC 150.
Although these plans for a greenway have been adopted, the City
and County governments do not currently own any of the land for its
implementation. Therefore, Section 4(f) is not involved in this
project and no further documentation is required.
10
4. Social Impacts
The proposed action will not disrupt community cohesion, and,
will not interfere with facilities and services. The project will
however require the relocation of six residences and no businesses.
5. Relocation of Residences and Businesses
The proposed widening of NC 150 will require six (6) residential
relocations. All of these residences are mobile homes. Right of way
officers from the NCDOT will negotiate with the affected homeowners.
It will be determined whether there is sufficient land area to move
the mobile homes back off the proposed right of way line without
moving them to a different location.
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable
replacement housing will be available prior to construction of state
and federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina
Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize
the inconvenience of relocation:
*Relocation assistance,
*Relocation moving payments, and
*Relocation replacement housing payments or rent supplement".
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff
will be available to assist displacees with information such as
availability and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale
or rent and financing or other housing programs. The Relocation
Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual
moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will
force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost
or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in cases of ownership),
the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and
qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted
in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or
the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through
133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced
persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do
business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each
highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced
families, individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm
operations for relocation assistance advisory services without regard
to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will
schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for
negotiations and possession of replacement housing which meets
decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are given at
least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT purchases the property.
fiq UOL4P4uawaldwL 10 Sp044aw UL sapn4!4el peoaq Molle o4 SL we16oad
a44 So asodand a41 •UOL4elLWLI le6al ale4s/leaapal a4i spaaoxa
juawked juawaoeldaa a44 pup Isueaw LeLOUeuLj s,aaoeldsLp a44 UL44LM
algPLLPAPun SL jL ua4M to lalgelLeAP IOU SL 6ULsno4 juawaOPLdaa
algeaedwoo ua4M pasn wPa6oad a SL 6uLSnOH 4aosaa 4sPI
•MPL leaapal aa440
Sup ao jod R4LanoaS leLOOS a4; Aapun a3ue4SLSSP JOS uosaad Sup So
R4[L!gL6LLa 10 4ua4xa a44 ao R4[LLgL6LLa 6uLULWaa4ap So sasodand a44
JOS ao b56I So apo0 anuanaa leuaaIUI a44 So sasodand a44 JOS awooUL
se paaaplsuoo aq IILM paALaoaa 4uawSed UOLIPOOIaa ON •;uawaOPLdsLp
o; aoLad OWL4 10 poLaad algeuoseaa P u1gjLM aaOeldsLp 43Pa JOS
pap[Aoad ao paaaIjo uaaq se4 6ULsno4 4uawaOPldaa algeaedwoo LL4un pup
ssalun s43aCoad UOL4ona4suoo pa4SLsse-Xlleaapa} ao 94els S.1000N a44
fiq paoeldsLp aq IILM uosaad ou 4P44 aMs a44 So ROLLod P SL 41
•05Zq$ spaaoxa juawalddns Iuaa a44 u84M paaLnbaa SL saULwaa4ap
ajejs a44 4P4M uodn paseq SL 4uawfied UMOp a41 •6uLllaMp IUawaOPLdaa
P 10 ase4oand a44 uo (sasuadxa leluaV OUL 6ULpnLOUL '4uawkPd
uMop P ajew o4 ao 6uLllaMp juawaOPldaa P 4uaa of IOSZ65$ paaoxa
of IOU °juawfied P aAlaOaa 04 aLq!6LLa aq New jueua4 paoeldsLp y
•UOLSLAoad
6ULsnOH Iaosaa Ise3 aqj aapun ideon `(LPIOI paulgwoo) 0051ZZ$
paaoxa IOU New sasuadxa ase4Oand LPjUapLOUL PUP ls4uawked jsaaajUL
paseaaoUL ls4uawked 6ULsno4 4uawaOPLdaa JOS s-4uednOoo-aauMo o;
juawasangwlaa •s6uLllaMp 4uawaoeldaa JOS sasuadxa 4SaJ8JUL paseaaOUL
Sup JOS 4uawked a ajew IalgeOLlddP SL 'pup s4soo 6uLSOLO aa440 PUP
'SIPSLeadde 'skanans Isaaj s,kauaolle sP 4Ons s6ULllaMp WOMOPLdaa
JOS s4uawked ase4Oand MUapLOUL algeuoseaa UL a4PdL0I4aPd IILM lOQON
IsaauMO JOS wPa60ad WawaOeldab 944 aapup •4OaCOA RPM4614 P JOS
paaLnboe SUOL4eaado waej pup °SUOL4eZLUP6ao 4Ljoad-uou IsassauLsnq
'sawo4 woaj X4aadoad leuosaad 6ULAOW 10 s4soo a44 JOS aaoeldsLp a44
94Psuadwoo o4 pau6Ls9p SL wPa60ad s4uaw,(Pd asuadx3 6ULAOW a41
•UOL4e30l Mau P o4 6UL4snCpP UL suosaad paoeldsLp 04 sdL4spaP4
aZLwLULW 01 aapaO UL papaau se saOLAaas RaoSLAPP a0410 aplAoad
IILM Pup suosaad paoeldsLp 04 a0UP4SLssP 6uLaaj}o swea6oad leaap91
ao a4P4s aa44o 6uLUaaOUOO uOLIPwaOSUL Rlddns osle LLLM aaOLSIO
UOL4eOOLaa a41 •(a M ssod jL) a4Ls aa44ouP o4 6ULsno4 quednooo-aauMo
6uL4sLxa 6uLnoW (£) ao `OLLgnd ao ajPALad J q j[a 16uLsno4
WaMOPldaa }o le Waa (Z) 16ULsno4 IuawaoPLdaa So ase4Oand (I)
sP 43ns 'SUOL4do aLq?L[PAe He 6ULpae6aa UO[4euPLdxa UP aALaoaa IILM
paoeldsLp aq New o4M s4uednooo LPL4uaplSaa aaUmO PUP lueual lld
•fi4aadoad WaMOPLdaa o4 6uLnoW
pup JOS 6UL4Oaeas UL SuOL4Paado wJvj pup °SUOL4PZLUP6ao j goad-uou
'SassaULsnq paoeldsLp 10 SaaUMO 4SLSSP oslP IILM aaOLI}o UOL4e3OIaa
a41 •4u9wSOLdwa So saOeld aLa44 04 a M ssaooe filgeuoseaa aq IILM PUP
paoeldsLp slenpLALpUL PUP SaLllwPJ 944 10 SUPaw LPLOUPULS aqj u1gj[M
aq IILM R4aadoad 4uawaOPLdaa So saOLad ales pup juaa •saL4LILOPI
IPLOaaWWOO PUP SaL4 M 4n OLLgnd o4 paP6aa UL algealsap ssal Xlleaaua6
IOU SPaaP UL paaa}jo aq IILM suosaad paoeldsLp 10 UOL4POOLaa
IT
'paaLnbaa SL 43y
UOLlejaodsUeaj l0 juaw4aeda0 a44 to (l)V UOL43aS ao loy UOLlenaasaad
3Lao4sLH LeuoLleN a44 10 901 UOL43aS 44Lm aoueLLdwo3 aaglanl ON
'(y xLpuaddy aaS) SBULpULI s,1003N
gILM paaanouoo 96/ZZ/Z POM aaljaL s,OdHS 'aalsL69a LeuOLIeN
941 UL 40LJISLP a se 6u psLL JOS aLgL6LLa PaaaPLsuoo 4011 aae 3dy a4j
ULgjiM p04eOOL saoanosaa LeanloalLg3ae 3LaolsL4 agj 'suoseaa asa44
ao3 'luawdOLanap LeoLsfi4d ao ueLd fiq fiLLeoL4a44sae ao kLLe3LJ04S14
pajLun sloaCgo ao `saanjonajs `s6ULPLLnq `sajLs to fiILnUL4uo3
ao la6elULL 'UOL4ea4ua3uo3 4ue3LJLu6Ls a juasaadaa jou op saoanosaa
LeanjoalLyoae oLa04SL4 6uLjsLx9 aqj 'sl3La4sLp oLaolsL4 aLgLssod Sue
aol palenLena osLe aaaM 3dy agj UL411M pa4e3OL saLjaadoad a41
'aalsL6aa LeuoLjeN ayl UL 6uLISLL aol aLgL6LLa aae saLlaadoad a4j to
auou 4e44 saeadde jL ??laadoad goea 10 Sanans PLaLI agj pup aLgeLLene
UOLjewaolUL Le3Lao4sL4 944 Uo pase8 '3dy a44 UL44LM pakanans
aaaM (alewLlsa OdHS a4l Ue44 aaow auo `sasno4 V) a6e to saeah
k4jLj nano saanlonajs LLy -OSi ON 6uoLe luawdoLanap LeLjuapLsaa pue
LeL3aawwo3 juaoeCpe Rq pauLlap SL pue RaAanS a44 aalle pazLLeULS Ua44
seM 4L !puel a44 to SeL a44 Sq paULwaalap SLLeL4LUL seM 3dy a41
'waLeS-UOjsuLM
UL XaeagL3 OLlgnd 944 le pajeooL BOLLS Le3L4aan 944 pue S4[SaanLUB
94PIS euLLoae3 44JON je u6Lsa0 to L0043S a44 `SaeagLl a4P4S euLLoae3
44UON a4l je PaULwexa aaaM Rlunoo a4l to a6e4Laa4 Leunloa414oae
a44 of 6uL4eLaa suoL4e3LLgnd LLy 'OdHS a44 le paMaLnaa aaaM S4LUL3Ln
43aCoad a44 of anLlelaa Sa HJ LLe `SaAanS PLaLI ayl Ol aoLad
•papuawwooaa seM Spnls PLaLI a pue (3dy) l0all3 M Walod to eaay
aqj uLgjLM PLO weak 94lLl JOAO sasnog aaagl PaLJLJUOPL OdHS a41
saoanosaa Le3LaOjsLH/Leanjoajigoay 'Z
•paaLnbaa SL 43y UOLlejaodsUeaj
to 4uaw4aeda0 aqj to (l)b UOL400S ao 43y UOLlenaasaad 3LaojSLH
LeuOLjeN a44 10 901 UOL43aS gjLM a3ueLLdwoo aagjanl ou °saoanosaa
Le3L6oloaeg3ae of pae6aa gjLM 'paaLnbaa joU seM RaAanS a lpgl
pauLwaajaP VMH3 `43all3 LeLluaWd to eaay a44 to a6paLMoul s,1003N
pue UOL4epuawwo3aa sLgj Uo pase8 'Raessa3aU joU seM Xanans plaLl
e 4e44 papuawwooaa b6/91/6 PaleP aajjaL s,OdHS •eaae paCoad aqj UL
sa4LS Le3L60LOaP43ae UMOul ou aae aaagl pajaodaa (OdHS) aa3L110 uOLI
-enaasaad oLaojsLH alM 044 `asegd 6ULdoos LeL4LUL aql 6uLan0
saoanosaa Le3L6oLoae43ay '1
saoanosaa leanlln3 pup oLaolSLH '3
'eaae aqj uLgjLM UOLle3oLaa
aol s9L4!un4aoddo alenbape aq of Aeadde aaagl a3ULs `40aCoad aqj
uo fiaessaoau aq LLLM wea6oad s144 je4j lLal joU SL lI 'papLnoad aq
ueo 6uLsnoq juawaoeLdaa faejLUes pup ales `luaoap je4j os alels a44
Zi
13
D. Natural Resources
1. Project Area
The project area is defined as the land including the right of
way (R/W) and the areas immediately adjacent to the R/W. The project.
vicinity is defined as a larger area, more or less about 0.5 miles on
all sides of the project area. Project region is the area more or
less the size of a standard 7.5 minute quadrangle sheet.
The project area is located in the Central Piedmont Ecoregion
(Omernik 1987), in suburban Forsyth County, North Carolina. It is
specifically located at the southern edge of Winston Salem
(population 143,485), lying south of I-40 and just west of US 52,
involving the immediate vicinity of NC 150. The project area is in a
developing residential and commercial zone, the result of outgrowth
from Winston-Salem. NC 150 is a very busy roadway (11,300 vpd in
1991). In the northern portion, there are adjacent subdivisions and
other residential development over flatter uplands and a golf course
is on bottomland. The central portion is forested and
semi-agricultural around the steeper slopes and bottoms of a major
stream system. The southern portion, on flatter uplands, in and
around the intersections of several state roads at the Davidson
County line, is residential and commercial in character. The project
area along NC 150 is within the South Fork of Muddy Creek watershed
and crosses several tributaries of this stream system. The
undeveloped parts of the project area include some croplands, old
abandoned fields, successional pine and mixed forests, and residual
second-growth upland and bottomland forests.
The existing NC 150 in the project area mostly follows the top
of a long, narrow ridge system in the northern half. In the southern
half, NC 150 crosses several small ridges between streams, and large
sections of cut/fill are present. Of the three major perennial stream
crossings, two streams are channeled by large box culverts and one is
traversed by a bridge in a wide floodplain. Elsewhere, pipe culverts
accommodate the intermittent drainage from small ravines traversed by
the roadway. Most of the R/W is regularly mowed and maintained.
2. Methodology
Project planning information and photomosaic maps were provided
by the NCDOT Planning Unit. Background research was undertaken prior
to site visits. Relevant sources of site information included the
Soil Survey Manual for Forsyth County (Zimmerman 1976), hydric soils
lists (Soil Conservation Service 1991), USGS 7.5 minute topographic
map (Welcome quadrangle, PR 1987; Winston-Salem West quadrangle, PR
1987), geologic map of N.C. (N.C. Geological Survey 1985), and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and N.C. Natural Heritage Program data for
rare and protected species. Stream classification and water quality
data were obtained from various reports of the Division of
Environmental Management of the N.C. Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR).
14
The project area was investigated on August 8, 1994. Field
methodology involved reconnaissance survey and evaluation of the
biota, natural communities and physical resources present in the
area. The entire alignment and many adjacent areas were walked and
inspected, and probable impacts due to construction were assessed.
Plant communities were identified and classified following
Schafale and Weakley (1990). Floristic and faunistic lists were
developed, and communities were mapped. Wetlands were determined
following standard procedures (Cowardin et al. 1979, Environmental
Laboratory 1987, Reed 1988). With a few exceptions, plant names
follow Radford, Ahles and Bell (1968). Animal names follow
treatments in Martof et al. (1980); Potter, Parnell and Teulings
(1980); Rohde et al. X994); and Webster, Parnell and Biggs (1994).
Godfrey (1980) provided useful information on expected animal
occurrences.
3. Physical Resources
a. Geology
The project area lies within the Charlotte Belt over
intrusive granite rock of the Churchland Plutonic Suite.
b. Physiography and Soils
The project vicinity in Forsyth County is located in the
Piedmont physiographic region in north-central North Carolina.
The landscape is generally rolling with long narrow dissected
ridges and gentle to moderately steep side slopes. Major
drainageways are long and narrow, but broad shallow ravines
occur on some sideslopes. Wide floodplains are not common.
Elevations range from about 216 m (710 ft) along the streams to
about 259 m (850 ft) on the highest parts of ridges.
Most of the soils of the study area are upland soils
belonging to the Pacolet-Cecil Association. These are gently
sloping and sloping loamy soils having clayey subsoils,
occurring on broad smooth ridgetops and on long side slopes.
They are all well-drained acidic soils formed in residuum. Many
of these soils in the project area are eroded.
A lessor portion of the upland soils is in the
Wedowee-Louisburg Association (well-drained and excessively
drained loamy or sandy acidic soils with clayey or sandy
subsoils on narrow ridgetops and long side slopes). A very
small part is in the upland Wilkes-Enon Association
(well-drained, loamy, medium acid to neutral soils with clayey
subsoils on narrow ridgetops and long, steep side slopes).
15
The lowland soils of the study area are in lesser abundance
and belong to the Chewacla-Wehadkee-Congaree Association. These
are nearly level loamy, acidic soils having sandy loam, loam,
silt loam, clay loam, and silty clay loam subsoils. They are
well-drained, somewhat poorly drained and poorly drained soils
formed on floodplain alluvium and subject to overflow.
The most abundant soils are Cecil clay loams and sandy
loams (2-10% slopes), Appling sandy loam (2-10% slopes), and
Chewacla loam. Other soils present include Pacolet clay loams
(6-25% slopes), Wilkes soils (6-10% slopes), Louisburg loamy
sand (6-15% slopes), Wedowee-Louisburg complex (6-15% slopes),
and Wehadkee soils. Existing roads are mostly all on upland
soils, except where stream floodplains are crossed.
The only listed hydric soil in the project vicinity is the
Wehadkee series. This poorly drained soil occupies a
significant part of the low areas along creeks and streams,
typically occurring along narrow drainageways and against slopes
in larger floodplains, and also occurring as an inclusion in wet
spots and depressions on the Chewacla series.
C. Water Resources
Waters Impacted. All drainage from the project area is
ultimately into the South Fork of Muddy Creek, which flows in a
southwesterly direction for about 24 km (15 mi) in southern
Forsyth County, joining the southern end of Muddy Creek in the
northern edge of Davidson County near the Forsyth County line.
Muddy Creek, a major tributary of the Yadkin River, arises in
northern Forsyth County and southern Stokes County and joins the
Yadkin River in northern Davidson County. Flow then continues2
to the Pie Dee River. The Muddy Creek watershed drains 1159 km
(720 mi and it is has "very high priority for potential
nonpoint source pollution based on the intensity of land
disturbing activities" (NCDEHNR 1988). Muddy Creek is further
described as a degraded stream (among many others in the project
region) associated with urban runoff and point sources of
pollution. The project area lies in the sub-basin (03-07-04)
circumscribing Muddy Creek and part of the Yadkin River and
includes the city of Winston-Salem and smaller cities to the
south.
NC 150 crosses three perennial streams. The main stem of
the South Fork Muddy Creek crosses under a bridge about mid-way
in the project area. Two other perennial streams are Leak Creek
(a tributary of the South Fork) and an unnamed tributary of Leak
Creek, both channeled through large box culverts. Also, two
identifiable small intermittent streams are crossed by NC 150.
Sides Branch and Perryman Branch, tributaries of the South Fork
on the west and east sides of NC 150, respectively, are
16
perennial streams that receive drainage from the project
corridor via small draws, ravines, and groundwater. Any flow of
draws and intermittent streams is carried under the existing
roadway by pipe culverts.
The South Fork Muddy Creek and its tributaries in the
project area will be impacted by construction (Fig. 4). Viable
wetlands are no longer associated with most of the streams in
the project area. As the ultimate receiving stream, the South
Fork will receive all of the runoff from the roadway and
construction activity. No dischargers are indicated for South
Fork Muddy Creek, but there are over 100 dischargers in the
Muddy Creek watershed which drains much of the Winston-Salem
area (NCDEHNR 1988, 1989).
Stream Characteristics. The South Fork of Muddy Creek is a
low-gradient small Piedmont stream. Fish (1968) describes it as
"too polluted to be of fishing significance." He describes Muddy
Creek in his "carp-catfish" ecological classification but
considers it unimportant as a fishing stream because of heavy
pollution. This classification obtains for deep streams over 15
m (50 ft) in width, and with minimum flows over 9 cros (30 cfs).
They are warm, turbid streams with silt, muck and boulder
bottoms.
Of the three perennial streams crossed by NC 150, two are
channelized. Both the South Fork and Leak Creek are
channelized, but the large tributary of Leak Creek has a natural
stream channel.
The channel in South Fork Muddy Creek at the NC 150
crossing (see Fig. 4) is the largest. The channel is straight,
about 3 m (10 ft) deep, and 9 m (30 ft) in width under the
existing bridge. At the time of the site visit, water flow was
clear but appeared to be low. Only about two-thirds of the
channel contained water, with some stagnating side pools
evident. At the deepest points, the water may have been 46 cm
(18 in) deep. The bottom substrate is unconsolidated mucky
sandy silt. No vegetation was present in the channel, and only
a narrow riverine forest fringe bounds the stream in the broad
floodplain.
The Leak Creek channel presents a much nicer appearance
than the South Fork channel even though they are both
channelized. Leak Creek flows under the roadway through four
large box culverts, but the two side culverts were filled with
sandy sediment. The substrate was unconsolidated sand and
gravel. The channel is straight, about 6-9 m (20-30 ft) in
width, and about 5 m (15 ft) in depth. The water level was 15
cm (six in) deep at the most and was very clear. No vegetation
was present in the channel. Except for the roadbank covered by
kudzu, the channel is shaded and bounded by mature alluvial
forest, with a steep slope on the west side.
17
The unnamed tributary that feeds into Leak Creek appears to
be contained in a natural stream channel, except for box
culverts and constructed area near the roadway. The stream
meanders and the water was clear. The channel was about 3 m (10
ft) in width with very low banks. Water depth was only about 8
cm (three in) at the deepest points. Except for open roadbanks
nearest the roadway covered by kudzu, the stream is shaded by
alluvial forest.
As there were no stream crossings of Sides Branch and
Perryman Branch with this project, stream dimensions and
substrates were not investigated.
The two small intermittent streams noted in the project R/W
were completely dry at the time of the site visit. They appear
to carry water only during especially wet periods. Channel
substrates were not scoured and were vegetated.
Best Usage Classification. South Fork Muddy Creek and Leak
Creek are classified as Class "C" streams (NCDEHNR 1993). The
same classification is given to most other streams in the
project vicinity, including Sides Branch, Perryman Branch, and
Muddy Creek. These are "freshwaters protected for secondary
recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation and
survival, and wildlife" (NCDEHNR 1994). This is the lowest
freshwater classification; all freshwaters receive this
classification at a minimum. All tributaries carry the same
classification as the streams to which they are tributary.
Water Quality. There are no biological classifications
available for South Fork Muddy Creek or any of its tributaries.
The nearest monitoring station on this stream system is on Muddy
Creek, downstream of the project area near the Davidson-Forsyth
county line at SR 2995 just above the mouth of South Fork Muddy
Creek. The most recent biological rating available for this
station is Fair [1983 and 1985 benthic macroinvertebrate (BMAN)
samplings], and the chemical rating is Partially Supporting (PS)
(NCDEHNR 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992). The overall rating for
use support is Partially Supporting (PS). The pollutants are
from non-point sources, with sediment and turbidity the problem
parameters. Salem Creek, the next tributary of Muddy Creek to
the north of South Fork Muddy Creek had a Poor biological rating
in 1983.
Anticipated Water Resource Impacts. Water quality data
indicate that many of the streams in the project region are
presently rated either partially supporting their designated
uses or are support-threatened. The designated uses are mostly
in the minimum classification. Construction impacts could
further degrade these waters, with pollutants and sediment loads
affecting water quality from a biological and chemical
standpoint.
18
Because of the generally acute sensitivity of aquatic
organisms to discharges and inputs deriving from construction,
appropriate measures must be taken to avoid spillage and control
runoff. These measures must include an erosion and sediment
control plan, provisions for waste materials and storage, storm
water management measures, and appropriate road maintenance
measures. Best Management Practices will be employed
consistently.
Table 3 summarizes potential surface water resource
impacts. Widening of NC 150 will involve crossings of three
perennial streams (presently, one crossed by bridge and two
crossed by large box culverts) and two intermittent streams.
Pollution discharges are possible with construction of culverts
and bridges for the three major perennial streams.
TABLE 3
WATER RESOURCES POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND ENCROACHMENTS
[See Figure 4 for location of encroachment (#)]
IMPACT DESCRIPTION FIG. 4 LOCATION
South Fork Muddy Creek crossing #2
[<O.1 ha (<0.1 acre)]
Leak Creek crossing #4
[<0.1 ha (<O.1 acre)]
Tributary of Leak Creek crossing #5
[<O.1 ha (<O.1 acre]
Intermittent stream crossings #1, 3
Small wet spots and ditches ---
[each <0.1 ha (<0.1 acre)]
[collectively 0.1 ha (0.2 acre)]
Impacts to wetlands will be minimal. Though large areas of
historical floodplain wetlands are present in the project R/W,
most of these wetlands have been drained by channelization such
that the modified hydrology no longer meets wetland
determination criteria. The vegetation is also changing under
this modified hydrology. Many facultative and upland species
are becoming established. There could be potential indirect
impacts to downstream offsite wetlands.
Construction of this project should not modify the flow of
any stream, certainly no more than they already have been
modified through past construction of NC 150. Streams can be
crossed effectively with the continued use of appropriately
designed and placed pipe and box culverts. Careful design
19
should avoid the necessity of any stream relocation. Erosion
control measures will be necessary to protect all streams, and
all instream activities should be scheduled during low flow
periods.
There will be unavoidable negative impacts on the
vegetative cover that protects streams. Increased light levels,
higher stream temperatures, and changes in species composition
will modify affected stream reaches.
4. Biotic Resources
The biota and natural and secondary communities are all typical
of the Central Piedmont Ecoregion. No unusual or especially
significant elements were located during the field investigation.
Only common names are used in the discussion below after the
scientific name is first introduced.
a. Plant Communities
Good, large and well-developed or mature examples of the
natural primary communities are uncommon in the project area.
Much of the general landscape in the project vicinity has been
altered through logging, clearing, past agricultural activity,
establishment of sewer and transmission line rights-of-way, and
residential, recreational, and commercial development.
Secondary communities comprise most of the natural vegetation.
Occasional large hardwood trees 51 cm (20-36 in) dbh occur
throughout the project area in forests and in border areas, but
the average dbh in forests is approximately 30 cm (12 in).
In the project R/W, the major land and community types are
mixed pine and hardwood forest [3.7 ha (9.2 acres)] and
maintained grass-based roadside [3.1 ha (7.7 acres)] with other
primary and secondary vegetative communities and land types each
in considerably lesser quantities [ranging from <0.1 to 1.5 ha
(0.2 to 3.8 acres')] (Table 4).
The predominant natural upland communities of the project
area appear to have been variations of Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory
Forest on ridgetops and sideslopes. This community now exists
almost exclusively in successional mixed pine and hardwood
phases. Other small areas on lower slopes and drier ridge tops,
respectively, were developed in Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest and
Dry Oak-Hickory Forest. Small mature examples of these
community types remain in the project R/W. It is noted that one
distinguishing element of the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
(occasional beech, particularly saplings) is present in all the
upland forests, regardless of type. Piedmont Alluvial Forest
naturally covered a large area on the South Fork Muddy Creek
floodplain and smaller areas along the flatter small stream
segments. This forest has been cleared from most of the larger
floodplains and now exists only along the small floodplains and
as a "strip" forest bordering the roadway in the large
floodplain.
20
Community descriptions are based on observations derived
from the general vegetation in and near the project R/W. For
purposes of discussion and quantification, the following
communities are recognized in the R/W: upland hardwood forest
(no distinction of natural community types), alluvial forest,
mixed pine and hardwood forest, pine forest, early woody
successional community, herbaceous successional communities,
thickets, wet ditch/culvert communities, and maintained
roadside. Other miscellaneous land types, including cropland,
lawns and built-up areas, ruderal areas, and roadway and median
are discussed as a group.
Upland Hardwood Forest. This community exists as mostly
older second-growth that has been selectively cut for many
years. Old forest roads were often present. No exceptionally
nice stands were present in or near the R/W. Most of the unit is
Dry-Mesic Oak--Hickory Forest, but some parts tend to Mesic
Mixed Hardwood Forest or Dry Oak--Hickory Forest. White oak is
the dominant canopy tree on most sites. Other important trees,
varying by site, included beech, southern red oak, northern red
oak, willow oak, and hickories. Some sweetgum, black locust,
tulip tree, red maple, black gum, and pines were occasionally
present. Sourwood, red cedar, and flowering dogwood were often
important in the understory. Shrubs and vines of these
communities included strawberry bush, arrowwood, muscadine,
Virginia Creeper, Japanese honeysuckle, and glaucous greenbrier.
Herbs were generally sparse, but included grape fern,
Christmas fern, sedge, crane-fly orchid, rattlesnake root, and
bellwort.
On lower slopes, the amount of beech, northern red oak,
hickory (including shagbark hickory), and tulip tree increased.
Pawpaw became important in the shrub layer.
Alluvial Forest. This forest occurred either as narrow
strips along roadway, as narrow strips of riverine forest in
cleared floodplains, or as larger forest units. The canopy of
these communities was variously dominated by sweetgum, tulip
tree, green ash, boxelder, red maple, and sycamore. River birch,
black willow, white ash, red elm, red mulberry, and black walnut
were sometimes common. Cottonwood was rare. Giant cane was
often important. Other species present in the shrub layer
included stiff dogwood, blackberry, multiflora rose, privet,
beaked hazelnut, pawpaw, and elderberry. Poison ivy was often
present and Virginia creeper occurred occasionally.
The herb layer was usually well-developed and included
wingstem, false nettle, cinnamon vine, jewelweed, Joe-pye weed,
Christmas fern, pokeweed, lopseed, dayflower, avens, witchgrass,
Japanese grass, sedges, hog peanut, and goldenrod.
21
In some areas, particularly in the strip forests where some
earth modification probably had occurred for previous roadway
and ditch construction, many other species were often common and
weedy. These included Japanese honeysuckle, trumpet creeper,
common greenbrier, muscadine, multiflora rose, and winged elm.
Some of the forest strips along roadway were clearly drier
and intermediate to upland mixed pine and hardwood forests.
Besides many of the previous woody species mentioned for the
alluvial forest, these areas also included persimmon, red cedar,
black cherry, willow oak, black gum, Virginia pine, shortleaf
pine, flowering dogwood, cross vine, and rare black willow.
Willow oak was sometimes the dominant in these situations.
Princess tree was sporadic in occurrence. Some herbs present
here included hawkweed, fennel, bedstraw, oatgrass, and ebony
spleenwort.
Mixed Pine and Hardwood Forest. This community combines
elements of the Upland Hardwood Forest and the Pine Forest
community. It is the intermediate phase of succession leading
to hardwood phases. This is the most common community type
present in the project area. A lot of this community in the
residential areas was quite trashy. Some areas were heavily
eroded.
The most common canopy species were tulip tree, red maple,
sweetgum, shortleaf pine, and Virginia pine. Other frequently
occurring species were willow oak, persimmon, red elm, post oak,
and southern red oak. Princess tree and tree-of-heaven were
sporadic in strip forests along the roadway. An occasional large
beech, white oak, or northern red oak was present. The
transgressives included white oak, willow oak, black cherry, red
maple, black oak, red cedar (many cut out), black gum,
hickories, and beech. Flowering dogwood and sourwood were
common. Shadbush, American holly, and ironwood were rare.
Shrubs and vines present included smooth sumac, beaked hazelnut,
pawpaw, blueberries, black haw, strawberry bush, blackberry,
grapes, Japanese honeysuckle, poison ivy, trumpet creeper,
muscadine, glaucous greenbrier, and common greenbrier. There
were many large patches of running cedar. Pipsissewa was
infrequent. Species occasionally present included tick-trefoil,
milkvine, elephant-foot, and Solomon's seal.
Many of the younger stands were very open beneath, and
these stands usually had more pine, especially Virginia pine.
Pine Forest. Virginia pine is dominant in this community
that has developed over some old fields. Shortleaf pine was not
as common. Typical woody transgressives from the drier upland
hardwood forest were present, including beech. Trumpet creeper
and glaucous greenbrier were common. Large patches of running
cedar were common.
22
Early Woody Successional Community. This community type
occurred over abandoned fields and was not very common. They
generally did not yet have a closed canopy, and shrub/herb
thickets were well-developed. Vegetation is more dense in lower
areas. Common species were red cedar, shortleaf pine,
persimmon, winged elm, boxelder, black cherry, willow oak,
sweetgum, post oak, smooth sumac, blackberry, Japanese
honeysuckle, trumpet creeper, sericea, panic grass, fennel,
thorough-wort, bushclovers, dogbane, ragweed, goldenrods,
asters, and fescue. Some rush was sometimes present.
Herbaceous Successional Communities. These were either
regularly maintained fields, abandoned fields in the early
stages of succession, or some power line rights-of-way. They
were moist or dry depending on location. Grasses were usually
dominant, often including Johnson grass, gama grass, bentgrass,
fescue, Japanese grass, foxtail grass, and panic grass. Other
species present included trumpet creeper, ragweed, tall ragweed,
Queen Anne's lace, buttonweed, smartweed, red clover, milkweed,
fleabane, beggar-ticks, lyre-leaved sage, sundrops, goldenrods,
sericea, and bushclovers. There were occasional red cedars,
pines, black cherries, red maples, mimosa, sassafras, and
blackberry.
Thickets. This is a catchall community that includes many
types of thickets in the study area. They are upland or
alluvial, depending on specific location, but they are all
characterized by being dense and virtually impenetrable. Shrubs
and/or vines are usually dominant, but some may include hardwood
and pine transgressives from the adjacent forests. Sericea,
blackberry, Japanese honeysuckle, common greenbrier, trumpet
creeper, grapes, elderberry, giant cane, and multiflora rose
were locally common. Each type covers only a small area in the
R/W. Collectively, they cover 0.9 ha (2.3 acres).
Some herbs were also locally important, including species
such as ragweed, thorough-wort, goldenrods, Queen Anne's lace,
pokeweed, wingstem, ironweed, sensitive brier, soft rush,
miscanthus, witchgrass, broomsedge, dallis grass, and plume
grass.
In order of decreasing abundance, they were kudzu thicket
(dense expanses over the roadway fill and adjacent vegetation at
Leak Creek and the tributary to Leak Creek), pine/scrub thicket,
pine/hardwood thicket, alluvial scrub thicket, hardwood sapling
thicket, powerline R/W thicket, and vine/scrub thicket.
Wet Ditch/Culvert Communities. These are clearly wet
communities, but most of them have developed in situations
created by roadway construction on non-hydric soils rather than
on residual hydric soils. Collectively, they occupy no more
than 0.1 ha (0.2 acres). There are at least nine occurrences.
Three are wet spots associated with low culvert mouths in the
maintained R/W. One is a small pool and associated marshy area
23
[<61 m2 (<200 ft2)] associated with a large culvert and drainage
collection area in the maintained R/W. Three are in long
ditches parallel to the roadway in the maintained R/W. Only two
are wet spots on hydric soils in the non-maintained R/W.
Typical species in these communities were beggar-ticks,
selfheal, seedbox, St. John's wort, sundrops, foxtail grass,
dallis grass, barnyard grass, rushes, spikerush, bulrush,
flatsedge, beakrush, and transgressives of black willow,
sweetgum, red maple, and winged elm.
Maintained Roadside. This community covers a large portion
of the R/W. It is maintained in a low state of succession by
regular mowing. The community is grass-dominated, with forbs
mixed in throughout. Dominant grasses included Bermuda grass,
crabgrass, and dallis grass. Other locally important grasses
included purple-top grass, foxtail grass, bluestem, and
oatgrass. Forbs variously interspersed throughout included
plantains, rabbit tobacco, milkwort, wood-sorrel, passion
flower, fennel, goldenrods, bushclovers, and partridge pea.
Sparsely distributed woody transgressives and blackberry were
often present, and sericea was locally important on forest
edges.
In ecotonal edges, other species often present included
American burn, sunflower, horse nettle, and ironweed. Woody
species in some ecotones were often very dense and included red
maple and sweetgum.
Miscellaneous Types. Ruderal areas included highly
disturbed ground, graveled areas, waste areas, landfill areas,
and recent spoil or rip-rapped areas. Sericea, Bermuda grass,
fescue, ragweed, beggar-ticks, goldenrods, dodder, bushclovers,
wormwood, and lambsquarter were common species on different
sites.
Lawns and associated structures were all lumped together
into one category. Lawns are usually more nearly monocultures
of selected grasses, but many forbs typical of the maintained
roadside and early herbaceous successional communities often
were present.
Croplands were all on bottomlands. These were all very
weedy with cocklebur, fleabane, beggar-ticks, and tall ragweed.
Some sections of roadway and associated median were
included in area measurements when they fell within the standard
R/W used for calculation purposes.
b. Terrestrial Fauna
The wildlife and other fauna are less easily observed than
the flora of an area without special efforts being expended.
Evidence of the typical fauna is sought through habitat
evaluation, casual sightings, and observation of sounds, tracks,
24
scats, dens, and other indirect evidence. Studies of range
distributions are also important in estimating the expected
fauna of a given area.
Descriptions of the expected fauna of the project area,
given the evidence available and the human population density
and development, are given below. Those taxa actually observed
in the field or for which direct evidence was seen are noted
with an asterisk (*) in the text.
There is a diverse mix of habitat types and ecotonal areas
that is beneficial for many species. There are some large
continuous forested tracts in the ridge and stream system in the
southern half of the project area, as well as many small woods
lots and successional areas elsewhere in the project area. Open
areas are abundant with a lot of edge present. However, large
habitat types are becoming increasingly fragmented due to
development, such that some species might be adversely affected.
The landscape diversity in the area is judged to be generally
good for bird diversity, however, avian fauna were not notably
abundant in the project area. This could be due to the
extremely noisy conditions arising from heavy road traffic along
NC 150. The noise also may have made inaudible any bird sounds
that were present. There are a few small ponds in the project
vicinity, but none near the R/W. The distinct array of
reptiles, birds and mammals that frequent such areas is not
expected in the project area.
Based on available habitat, animals are here divided into
five general groups, four mostly expected in a specific habitat
type, and the fifth being somewhat ubiquitous . These are more
open areas, consisting of early herbaceous successional stages,
croplands, ruderal areas, lawns, and maintained roadside areas;
intermediate habitats, consisting of the early woody stages of
succession and thickets; forest; and stream and wetland
habitats.
Those generally ubiquitous amphibians are American toad,
Fowler's toad, upland chorus frog, and spring peeper. The slimy
salamander and eastern newt are expected in moister forest
habitats. Treefrogs should be common, particularly in the
alluvial forest areas. Ambystomid salamanders are probably not
common because of the absence of suitable breeding pools in the
area.
Among the widely distributed reptiles, those occurring here
probably include the five-lined skink, rat snake, black racer,
rough green snake, earth snake, and copperhead. The eastern
hognosed snake is expected in open areas. In intermediate
habitats, likely occurrences include eastern fence lizard,
eastern garter snake, and eastern milk snake. Typical reptiles
of the forested habitats are *eastern box turtle, ground skink,
brown snake, redbelly snake, ringneck snake, and worm snake.
25
The avifauna of open areas include *mourning dove, *field
sparrow, common grackle, robin, starling, eastern meadowlark,
grasshopper sparrow, and eastern bluebird. Birds in
intermediate areas include brown thrasher, *mockingbird,
*goldfinch, *indigo bunting, kingbird, common yellowthroat, and
bobwhite. Forest species include various wood warblers
(Parulidae), wood thrush, *tufted titmouse, summer tanager,
eastern phoebe, red-eyed vireo, American redstart, and blue-gray
gnatcatcher. Species ranging through many habitats include
red-tailed hawk, screech owl, *common crow, *cardinal, *Carolina
wren, yellow-billed cuckoo, *blue jay, rufous-sided towhee,
*downy woodpecker, and *Carolina chickadee. Green-backed heron
and belted kingfisher probably utilize the larger streams in the
alluvial forests.
Mammals of open and intermediate habitats include
southeastern shrew, least shrew, long-tailed weasel, meadow
vole, *hispid cotton rat, and groundhog. Those ranging into
forests as well as open and intermediate habitats are northern
short-tailed shrew, eastern mole, striped skunk, gray fox, red
fox, white-footed mouse, and eastern cottontail. Several
species usually shunning open areas, but in the intermediate and
forested areas, include opossum, pine vole, golden mouse, and
southern flying squirrel. Several kinds of bats, such as little
brown myotis, eastern pipistrelle, and red bat, might be
expected foraging over the streams and broken forests.
Exclusively forest species include raccoons, *gray squirrel, and
evening bat. Muskrat and mink should be common in the alluvial
areas around the streams. Evidence of white-tailed deer, a
typically mid-successional species, was not observed in the
area, but sightings were reported by a local resident.
C. Aquatic Life
No fish were observed in any of the streams. Fish expected
in the perennial streams include creek chub, yellow bullhead,
creek chubsucker, and some sunfishes.
No aquatic amphibians were observed, but the streams could
support northern dusky salamander, two-lined salamander,
three-lined salamander, and pickerel frog. A *green frog was
observed at one site.
Good turtle habitat is not present. Northern water snake
and queen snake are likely water snakes of the area.
No evidence of crayfish (Cambaridae) was noted. Large
numbers of *whirligig beetles were the only aquatic insects
noted.
d. Anticipated Biotic Resource Impacts
Terrestrial Systems. Projected direct impacts due to
project construction are given in Table 4. Calculations are
best approximations given the design specifications available
26
and the precision possible with this study. Area measurements
were calculated on a photomosaic map on the R/W drawn north of
the existing pavement edge. This R/W extends approximately 35 m
(115 ft) beyond the west pavement edge. The actual impacts to
biotic communities should be less than those indicated in Table
4, because it is not likely that all of the R/W will be utilized
in construction. Design information indicates that there will
be only 21 m (70 ft) of additional roadway, paved shoulder and
graded median constructed. The existing roadside community will
be consumed almost in its entirety; mostly only the edges of the
other communities and land types will be affected. There should
be only a small reduction of the total natural habitat in the
project area.
The data in Table 4 suggest only the direct impacts on land
and community types due to construction. However, there are
other indirect effects on wildlife population levels and habitat
value. There will be little or no net loss of habitat for small
animal species and predators and scavengers that utilize open
areas such as roadsides. There will be a small reduction in the
available habitat for animals that require forest and
intermediate habitats. Mortality rates for all species due to
road kills would increase overall because of the additional R/W
that would have to be negotiated by animals in their movement
patterns, i.e., from two to four lanes. The existing roadway
already disrupts natural corridor movement, so road widening
will not introduce a substantially new factor.
Aquatic Systems. Impacts on fishes should be minimal if
construction is done carefully to reduce sedimentation and
channel alternation and if no barriers to fish movement are
introduced. Additional concreted pipe and box culverts will
have to be installed to channel streams; these can cause
behavioral inhibition of movement for some species.
Removal of streamside vegetation will increase stream
temperature and irradiance and will cause a reduction of
allochthonous food sources. These effects will negatively alter
the stream characteristics for some aquatic organisms. Substrate
alteration will have negative effects on sessile benthic
organisms. Three perennial streams will be impacted in this
way.
Increased sediment and pollution from highway construction
activity and runoff pollution after construction are widely
recognized as factors that can seriously reduce water quality.
Given the nature of the soils in this area, there is great risk
of heavy erosion. Aquatic organisms are generally acutely
sensitive to these inputs.
27
TABLE 4
AREA ESTIMATES OF COMMUNITY AND LAND TYPES
IMPACTED UNDER RIGHT OF WAY
hectares acres
Mixed pine and hardwood forest 3.7 9.2
Maintained roadside 3.1 7.7
Pine forest 1.5 3.8
Alluvial forest 1.5 3.6
Lawns and built-up areas 1.4 3.5
Herbaceous successional communities 1.4 3.4
Thickets 0.9 2.3
Upland hardwood forest 0.8 2.0
Early woody successional 0.8 1.9
Roadway and median 0.7 1.8
Ruderal areas 0.7 1.8
Cropland 0.5 1.2
Wet ditch/culvert communities <0.1 <0.2
Stream community <0.1 0.1
TOTAL
<17.2 <42.5
5. Special Topics
a. Jurisdictional Waters of the U. S.
Highway construction affects wetlands by direct taking and
by alteration of characteristics and functions in adjacent
areas. Freshwater wetlands are important because of their
habitat value for fish, wildlife and endangered species;
maintenance of biological diversity; food chain support;
nutrient retention and removal; sediment trapping; shoreline
anchoring; regulation of flooding and groundwater hydrology;
recreation; their uniqueness in their own right; and their
aesthetic value in some case. Highway construction in wetlands
has major impacts on their value for these functions.
28
Wetlands and surface waters receive specific protection
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376)
and other federal and state statutes and regulations. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has jurisdiction over the
discharge of dredged or fill materials into these waters and
wetlands. Determination of jurisdictional wetlands were made
pursuant to 33 CFR 328.3 (b) based on best judgement of required
criteria (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
Surface waters of the riverine system in streams are the
only jurisdictional waters present in the project R/W, to which
construction will be limited. It is determined that no wetlands
are associated with any of the three stream crossings. Some
jurisdictional wetlands are present downstream of the R/W and
potentially will receive inputs from road construction.
None of the alluvial forests or successional lowland
systems in the project area meet the criteria for determination
of jurisdictional wetlands. Many of these, certainly on the
hydric Wehadkee soil, were good historical wetlands, but a
modified hydrology due most likely to channelization, has
altered their function and characteristics. The effects of the
changed hydrology are beginning to be evident in the understory
and herb strata.
The wet ditches and culvert wet areas are a direct result
of modern road construction. Even though they have appropriate
hydrological conditions and good representative hydrophytic
vegetation, they have almost exclusively developed as inclusions
over non-hydric soils. Only two of these wet spots are in
natural positions on non-maintained R/W. For these reasons,
they are excluded from meeting the definition of jurisdictional
wetlands.
Any of the wet spots that might reasonably be classified as
wetland would be considered PEM1 (Palustrine, Emergent,
Persistent) or PSS1A (Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved
Deciduous) (Cowardin et al. 1979).
Only the small wet spots and ditches will be impacted
directly by construction. Each area is <0.1 ha (<0.1 acre), and
collectively they amount to <0.1 ha (<0.2 acre) (Table 4). It
will be impossible to avoid most of these in project design and
construction. (See Section 2.3.2 for further discussion.)
Permits. In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit is required from
the COE to discharge and place fill materials into any wetlands
affected by construction. Nationwide Permits [33 CFR 330.5
(a)(26)] authorize actions that have no significant
environmental effect, such as when dealing with wetlands of
small size [below 0.1 ha (0.33 acre) and short bridge crossings
[<61 m (<200 ft)].
29
A 401 Water Quality Certification from the Water Quality
Section of the Division of Environmental Management in NCDEHNR
will be required for fill activity in wetlands and surface
waters where a federal permit is required.
The subject project is classified as a Categorical
Exclusion. It was determined during the site inspection that
most of the work will likely be eligible for Nationwide Permit
authorization since no wetlands are associated with any of the
three stream crossings along this project. Final discretionary
authority in these matters rests with the United States Army
Corps of Engineers.
Mitigation. The project will cause necessary losses of a
small amount of palustrine, mostly non-jurisdictional, wetlands.
However, compensatory mitigation is generally not required where
Nationwide Permits are sanctioned, pursuant to a Memorandum of
Understanding between the Environmental Protection Agency and
the COE. Ultimate discretionary authority in these matters
rests with the COE.
Notwithstanding, extreme care will be taken in designing
and placing all structures and roadway in order to minimize
impact. Properly installed and appropriate kinds of drainage
culverts will help minimize impacts to wetlands. Appropriate
erosion control devices will have to be installed to prevent
avoidable storm water discharges into streams and wetlands, and
soil stabilization measures must be taken as quickly as possible
during and after construction of banks, fills, graded areas,
culverts, bridges, and other areas where the soil will be
disturbed.
b. Rare and Protected Species
Federally Protected Species. Species classified as
Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Proposed Threatened (PT), and
Proposed Endangered (PE) receive federal protection under
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended. As of March 30, 1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service reports two species with one of these classifications
for Forsyth County (Table 5).
TABLE 5
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES IN FORSYTH COUNTY
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FED. CAT. STATE CAT.
Red-cockaded Picoides borealis E E
woodpecker
Small-anthered Cardamine micranthera E E
bittercress
E = endangered, in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range
30
The red-cockaded woodpecker inhabits mature, open pine
forests, primarily longleaf pine forests in the Coastal Plain
and Piedmont (LeGrand 1990). The species favors large tracts of
old pines, suitable for the construction of nesting cavities, in
areas having sparse understory vegetation. This type of habitat
does not exist in the project area. The woodpecker has been
largely extirpated in most areas outside the southeastern
Coastal Plain of North Carolina due to the demise of mature pine
forests following logging and the elimination of fire (Lee and
Parnell 1989). Old loblolly pine stands may also be used (Lee
and Parnell 1989). No element occurrences for this species in
Forsyth County are reported in the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) database.
Biological Conclusion: No effect
Small-anthered bittercress is a small biennial/perennial
mustard. It occurs only in Forsyth and Stokes counties in North
Carolina on streamside sandbars, in seeps, and in floodplain
depressions (Weakley 1993).
There are no known extant occurrences for Forsyth. County,
the last observation being in 1955, approximately 19 km (12 mi)
northeast of the project area (NCNHP database). Suitable
habitat for the federally endangered small-anthered bittercress
Cardamine micranthera occurs along the banks of three streams
Two Branches o Sout Fork Fiddlers Creek and an Unnamed
tributary of South Fork Fiddlers Creek) crossed by the
alignment. Each stream crossing was surveyed by NCDOT biologist
Tim Savidge on May 8, 1995. Plant-by-plant surveys along the
stream banks were conducted by wading in the streams for a
distance of approximately 100 m (330 ft.) upstream and
downstream of project crossing. No small-anthered bittercress
plants were found.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
Based on the survey results, it can be concluded that
construction of this project will have no impact on the
small-anthered bittercress.
Federal Candidate and State Protected Species. Candidate 2
taxa (C2) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions until formally
proposed or listed as E or T. C2 species show some evidence of
vulnerability, but there are not enough data to support listing
proposals at this time.
North Carolina affords protection to Endangered,
Threatened, Special Concern (SC), and Significantly Rare (SR)
species in the state. Plants are legally protected under the
Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, and animals are
legally protected under the N.C. Endangered Species Act of 1987.
31
Only one taxon was listed as a federal candidate species
for Forsyth County (Table 6). It is mentioned here for
information purposes in the event it becomes federally listed in
the future. The state listing is also given.
TABLE 6
FEDERAL CANDIDATE AND STATE LISTED SPECIES
FOR FORSYTH COUNTY
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FED. CAT. STATE CAT.
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii C2 T
T = threatened, likely to become endangered in N.C.
within foreseeable future throughout all or portion
of range
The bog turtle inhabits wet grassy pastures, marshes, wet
thickets and bogs in the mountains and Piedmont (LeGrand 1990).
It is more common in the mountains. This secretive and
difficult to find animal is our smallest turtle at only 8-10 cm
(3-4 in). Suitable habitat for this species does not occur in
the project area. However, at least six populations are known
for Forsyth County (NCNHP database). The nearest identified
population occurs in a low elevation seep 1.1 km (0.7 mi) west
of NC 150 in the project vicinity, just west of the confluence
of South Fork Muddy Creek and Leak Creek. The reporter (D.
Herman in 1993) recorded that "This is the most viable and
extant population of bog turtles in Forsyth County." Another
population was also reported to be nearby on Leak Creek, but no
specific location was given.
Besides the bittercress and the bog turtle, the Natural
Heritage Program database includes element occurrences for 19
other rare taxa in Forsyth County, two animals and 17 plants.
None of them were noted in the project area, but the possibility
of their occurrence cannot be excluded.
E. Traffic Noise
1. General
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the
proposed widening of NC 150 in Forsyth County on noise levels in the
immediate project area. This investigation includes an inventory of
existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient
(existing) noise levels in the study area. It also includes a
comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels
to determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected resulting from
the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined from the
32
current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and
construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted,
examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures
for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
2. Characteristics of Noise
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted
from many sources including airplanes, factories, railroads, power
generation plants, and highway vehicles. Highway noise, or traffic
noise, is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive
train, and tire-roadway interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound
pressure. Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a
logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to some common
reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described
in decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in
terms of frequency weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in
vehicle noise measurements because it places the most emphasis on the
frequency range to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000
Hertz). Sound levels measured using a weighted-A decibel scale are
often expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise levels will
be expressed in dBA's. Several examples of noise pressure levels in
dBA are listed in Table N1 (all referenced Traffic Noise tables are
located in the Appendix).
Review of Table N1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized
areas are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as
they go about their daily activities. The degree of disturbance or
annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three things:
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the intruding
noise.
3) The type of activity occurring where the noise is heard.
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important
to note that individuals have different sensitivity to noise. Loud
noises bother some more than others and some individuals become riled
if an unwanted noise persists. The time patterns of noise also enter
into an individual's judgement of whether or not a noise is
offensive. For example, noises occurring during sleeping hours are
usually considered to be more repugnant than the same noises in the
daytime.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the
annoyance of an unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise
from other sources (background noise). The blowing of a car horn at
33
night when background noise levels are approximately 45 dBA would
generally be more objectionable than the blowing of a car horn in
the afternoon when background noises might be 55 dBA.
The third factor is related to the interference of noise with
activities of individuals. In a 60 dBA environment, normal
conversation would be possible while sleep might be difficult. Work
activities requiring high levels of concentration may be interrupted
by loud noises while activities requiring manual effort may not be
interrupted to the same degree.
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted
intervals and are expected, individuals tend to accept the noises
which intrude into their lives. Attempts have been made to regulate
many of these types of noises including airplane noise, factory
noise, railroad noise, and highway traffic noise. In relation to
highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control have developed
rapidly over the past few years.
3. Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are
not compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria (NAC)
and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways.
These abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in the
aforementioned Federal reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772). A summary
of the noise abatement criteria for various land uses is presented in
Table N2. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level of
constant sound which in a given situation and time period has the
same energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the
fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of
a steady noise level with the same energy content.
4. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the
project to determine the existing background noise levels. The
purpose of this noise level information was to quantify the existing
acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact
of noise level increases. The existing Leq noise level along NC 150
as measured at 50 feet from the roadway ranged from 71.4 to 72.5 dBA.
The ambient measurement sites and measured exterior Leq noise levels
are presented in Figure N2 and Table N3, respectively.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the
most current traffic noise prediction model in order to calculate
existing noise levels for comparison with noise levels actually
measured. The calculated existing noise levels were within 0.1 and
1.9 dBA of the measured noise levels for the three locations where
noise measurements were obtained. Differences in dBA levels can be
attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual
vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles and
single vehicular speed.
34
5. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number
of variables which describe different cars driving at different
speeds through a continual changing highway configuration and
surrounding terrain. Due to the complexity of the problem, certain
assumptions and simplifications must be made to predict highway
traffic noise.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study
was the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and
OPTIMA (revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction)
procedure is based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction
Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model uses
the number and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds,
the physical characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed,
elevated, etc.), receptor location and height, and, if applicable,
barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary
alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. The project
proposes to widen the existing two-lane highway to a five lane
facility from the multi-lane section near the Davidson County line to
the multi-lane section in Winston-Salem. Only those existing natural
or man-made barriers were included in setting up the model. The
roadway sections and proposed intersections were assumed to be flat
and at-grade. Thus, this analysis represents the "worst-case"
topographical conditions. The noise predictions made in this report
are highway-related noise predictions for the traffic conditions
during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were
compared, and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were
used with the proposed posted speed limits. Hence, during all other
time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those
indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to
determine the number of land uses (by type) which would be impacted
during the peak hour of the design year 2018. A land use is
considered to be impacted when exposed to noise levels approaching or
exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to
sustain a substantial noise increase. The basic approach was to
select receptor locations such as 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, and
1600 feet from the center of the near traffic lane (adaptable to both
sides of the roadway). The location of these receptors were
determined by the changes in projected traffic volumes and/or the
posted speed limits along the proposed project. The result of this
procedure was a grid of receptor points along the project. Using
this grid, noise levels were calculated for each identified receptor.
35
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are
listed in Table N4. Information included in these tables consist of
listings of all receptors in close proximity to the project, their
ambient and predicted noise levels, and the estimated noise level
increase for each.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that
are predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in
Table N5. These are noted in terms of those receptors expected to
experience traffic noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the FHWA
NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Under
Title 23 CFR Part 772, one business and thirty-six residential
receptors were determined to be impacted by highway traffic noise.
Other information included in Table N5 is the maximum extent of the
72 and 67 dBA noise level contours. This information should assist
local authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining
undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction.
For example, with the proper information on noise, the local
authorities can prevent further development of incompatible
activities and land uses with the predicted noise levels of an
adjacent highway.
Table N6 indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases
for the identified receptors in each roadway section. Predicted
noise level increases for this project range from +2 to +7 dBA. When
real-life noises are heard, it is possible to barely detect noise
level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable.
A 10 dBA change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving
of the loudness of the sound.
6. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise
levels either: [a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement
criteria (with "approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2
value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The
NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in the lower
portion of Table N2. Consideration for noise abatement measures must
be given to receptors which fall in either category. There are
thirty-two impacted receptors in the project area. A noise barrier
was evaluated; however, a noise wall would not be able to produce
sufficient reduction in noise levels in the project area, and
therefore, the cost per benefitted receptor was too costly to
recommend construction of a noise wall.
a. Highway Alignment
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or
vertical orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way
as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of alternative
alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the
balance between noise impacts and other engineering and
environmental parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal
36
alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway
at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive areas. Changing
the highway alignment is not a viable alternative for noise
abatement.
b. Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type,
speed, volume and time of operations are often effective noise
abatement measures. For this project, traffic management
measures are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due
to their effect on the capacity and level-of-service on the
proposed roadway.
C. Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels
can often be applied with a measurable degree of success by the
application of solid mass, attenuable measures to effectively
diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions.
Solid mass, attenuable measures may include earth berms or
artificial abatement walls.
The project will maintain only limited control of access,
meaning most commercial establishments and residences will have
direct access connections to the proposed roadway, and all
intersections will adjoin the project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction
it must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor
from significant sections of the highway. Access openings in
the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the
barrier. It then becomes economically unreasonable to construct
a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access
openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted
sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a
sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally be 8
times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For
example, a receptor located 50 feet from the barrier would
normally require a barrier 400 feet long. An access opening of
40 feet (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise reduction
to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY
TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1, USDOT,
chapter 5, section 3.2, page 5-27).
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related
establishments located along a particular highway normally
require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass,
attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to
disallow these 2 qualities, and thus, would not be acceptable
abatement measures in their case.
37
7. "No Build" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build"
alternative were also considered. If the proposed widening did not
occur, fifteen residences would experience traffic noise impacts by
approaching or exceeding the FHWA's NAC. Also, the receptors could
anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior noise levels in the
range of +0 to +4 dBA. As previous noted, it is barely possible to
detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change in noise
levels is more readily noticed.
8. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to
be earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction
noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passers-by
and those individuals living or working near the project, can be
expected particularly from paving operations and from the earth
moving equipment during grading operations. However, considering the
relatively short-term nature of construction noise and the limitation
of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to
be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby
natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be
sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
9. Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is
not recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This
evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title
23 CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change develops, no
additional noise reports will be submitted for this project.
F. Air Quality
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from
industry and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources.
The impact resulting from highway construction ranges from intensifying
existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient air quality. The
traffic is the center of concern when determining the impact of a new
highway facility or the improvement of an existing highway facility.
Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO),
hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO ), and lead (Pb)
(listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobil9s are considered
to be the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most
of the analysis presented is concerned with determining expected carbon
monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near
a highway, two concentration components must be used: local and
background. The local concentration is defined as the CO emissions from
cars operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within
100 meters) of the receptor location. The background concentration is
defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
38
Natural Resources as "the concentration of a pollutant at a point that is
the result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is, the
concentration at the upwind edge of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT
Traffic Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer modeling and
the background component was obtained from the North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). Once the two
concentration components were resolved, they were added together to
determine the ambient CO concentration for the area in question and to
compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen
oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried
into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form ozone and
nitrogen dioxide. It is the ozone and nitrogen dioxide that are of
concern and not the precursor hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide. Area-wide
automotive emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future
because of the continued installation and maintenance of pollution control
devices on new cars. Hence, the ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels
in the atmosphere should continue to decrease as a result of the
improvements to automobile emissions.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide
require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone
generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of hydrocarbon
emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as sources of
hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The emissions of all
sources in an urban area mix together in the atmosphere, and in the
presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide,
and other photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type of air
pollution is the smog which forms in Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less
than seven percent of particulate matter emissions and less than two
percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter and sulfur
dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of non-highway sources
(e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low, there
is no reason to suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality
standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline .
The burning of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of regular gasoline
containing tetraethyl lead which is added by refineries to increase the
octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars with catalytic converters burn
unleaded gasoline eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the
lead content of leaded gasolines. The overall average lead content of
gasoline in 1974 was 2 grams per gallon. By 1989, this composite average
had dropped to 0.01 grams per gallon. In the future, lead emissions are
expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead
content of leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of
39
1990 make the sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead
additives unlawful after December 31, 1995. Because of these reasons, it
is not expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the NAAQS
for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future
CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements.
"CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations
Near Roadway Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration for
each of the sensitive receptors to the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with
predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and worst-case
meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the annual
average daily traffic projections. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission
factors were calculated for the completion year (1999), five years after
completion (2004) and the Design Year of 2019 using the EPA publication
"Mobile Source Emission Factors", the MOBILE5A mobile source emissions
computer model for idle emissions and for free flow conditions.
The background CO concentrations for the project area was estimated
to be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality
Section, Division of Environmental Management (DEM), North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources indicated that an
ambient CO concentration of 1.9 ppm is suitable for most suburban and
rural areas.
The worst-case air quality scenario was determined to be located at
the intersection of NC 150 and SR 3010. The predicted 1-hour average CO
concentrations for the evaluation build years of 1999, 2004 and 2019 for
the worst-case air quality scenario are as follows:
1-Hour CO Concentration
(ppm)
Receptor 1999 2004 2019
REC 22 (NW CORNER) 2.2 2.3 2.4
REC 21 (SE CORNER) 2.3 2.3 2.5
REC 23 (NE CORNER) 2.2 2.2 2.2
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period =
9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of
the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded
that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard. See Tables Al, A2
and A3 (Appendix) for input data and output.
40
The project is located in Forsyth County, which is within the
Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point nonattainment area for ozone (03) and
the Winston-Salem nonattainment area for carbon monoxide (CO) as defined
by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated these
areas as "moderate" nonattainment area for 03 and CO. However, due to
improved monitoring data, these areas were redesignated as "maintenance"
for 03 on November 7, 1993 and for CO on November 8, 1994. Section 176(c)
of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects
conform to the intent of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP).
The current SIP does not contain any transportation control measures for
Forsyth County. The Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Urban Area 1995
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) has been determined to conform to
the intent of the SIP. The MPO approval dates for the TIP is November 9,
1994. The USDOT approval date of the TIP is February 6, 1995. The
current conformity determination is consistent with the final conformity
rule found in 40 CFR Part 51. There has been no significant changes in
the project's design concept or scope, as used in the conformity analyses.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting
from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed
from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any
burning done will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning
will be done at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and not
when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public.
Burning will be performed under constant surveillance. Also during
construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and
comfort of motorists or area residents.
G. Geology and Hazardous Materials Evaluation
1. Physiography, Relief and Drainage
The project corridor straddles the contact between the Charlotte
Belt and Milton Belt physiographic provinces. The terrain in this
area is gently rolling to hilly with broad interstream divides.
These interstream divides represent a peneplain that has been
dissected by moderately swift streams. Relief along the 4.35 km (2.7
mile) corridor is approximately 18.29 m (60 feet). The corridor is
well drained with the South Fork Muddy Creek and Leak Creek being the
principle drainageways.
2. Geology and Soils
Bedrock along the project corridor is from the Charlotte and
Milton Belts. Charlotte belt bedrock, in the southern half of the
project, is composed of equigranular to megacrystic granitic
intrusives. Milton Belt bedrock is composed of inequigranular to
magacrystic biotite gneiss, mica schist and amphibolite. The profile
of surficial structure is composed of a soil-subsoil layer
approximately 1.83 m (6 feet) deep in contact with a layer of soft,
41
weathered rock. Hard rock is encountered at an average depth of
greater than 1.22 m (4 feet). Along portions of NC 150 hard rock is
observed in outcrop and hard rock excavation is anticipate during
construction.
Soils within project limits are primarily from the Pacolet-Cecil
association. These soils are well drained, fine to coarse sandy
silts with various amount of clay. The subsoils are firm, silty,,
sandy clays that are locally strong or friable. Soils in the
floodplains of South Fork and Leak Creeks are from the Chewacla
series. These are somewhat poorly drained, alluvial soils with a
high silt and clay content.
Engineering properties for soils along this project indicate a
fair suitability for use as roadfill or topsoil material. Erosion
hazards and equipment limitations are slight. Embankment
construction is adversely affected by low shear strength and poor
compaction characteristics. Shrink-well potentials are low. Soil
reactivity, measured in pH, indicates that the soils are very strong
to medium acid, pH 4.5 to 6.0. The risk of corrosion to uncoated
steel and concrete is moderate. AASHTO soil classifications are
given to be A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7.
3. Mineral Resources
There are no known mineral resources of any economic expected to
be present within project limits.
4. Erosion Control
The potential for erosion is not expected to significantly
influence this project. Standard erosion and siltation control
measures will be utilized during construction.
5. Groundwater
The South Fork of Muddy Creek and Leak Creek cross the project
corridor. Streamflow is south-southwesterly. The depth to the
seasonally high water table is greater that 1.22 m (4 feet), except
in the immediate vicinity of the creeks. Except for the risk of
siltation, groundwater is not expected to be impacted by this
construction.
6. Hazardous Materials Inventory
The field reconnaissance identified three (3) active UST sites
and one (1) unregulated dump site with project limits.
Hickory Tree Texaco UST Owner: Leonard Oil Co.
Rt. 10, Box 271 2037 Vargrave St.
Winston-Salem, NC Winston-Salem, NC
Facility ID: 0-011784
42
This facility is located in the northeast quadrant of the
intersection of NC 150 and SR 1508. There are six (6) gasoline USTs
registered with the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Management (DEM) at this location, three 6000 gallon, one 6000 gallon
and one 10,000 gallon tanks. Installation of the tank system was
completed during November, 1991. During May, 1992, one 2000 gallon
kerosene UST was removed. The closest point of the UST system to the
centerline of NC 150 is a pump island on the west side of the
building. It is located approximately 30 meters (100 feet) from the
centerline. All current tanks are constructed of steel with no
cathodic protection. Since the removal of the kerosene system, the
facility has been monitored.
Phillips 66 Food Mart #8 UST Owner: Branchland, Inc.
5300 Peter's Creek Prky. P. 0. Box 1514
Winston-Salem, NC Winston-Salem, NC
Facility ID: 0-032733
This facility is located in the southwest quadrant of the
intersection of NC 150 and SR 3021. There are three (3) USTs
registered with the DEM at this location, two 12,000 gallon gasoline
and one 2000 gallon kerosene. Installation of the tank system was
completed during December, 1991. The closest point of the UST system
to the NC 150 centerline is the pump island on the south side of the
station building. It is located approximately 52 meters (170 feet)
from the centerline. All tanks are constructed of fiberglass
reinforced plastic (FRP) with no cathodic protection.
Wilco Food Mart #107 UST Owner: A.T. Williams Oil Co.
3715 Peter's Creek Prky. 5446 University Prky.
Winston-Salem, NC Winston-Salem, NC
Facility ID: 0-015523
This facility is located in the southeast quadrant of the
intersection of NC 150 and Bridgton Road. There are five (5) USTs
registered with the DEM at this location, one 6000 gallon and two
8000 gallon gasoline, one 8000 gallon kerosene and one 8000 gallon
diesel. Installation of the tank system was completed during April,
1993. The closest point of the UST system is a gasoline pump island
located approximately 26 meters (85 feet) from the NC 150 centerline.
The USTs are constructed of steel with no cathodic protection.
Additional right of way should not be allowed to encroach upon
USTs within the project corridor. Purchasing property containing
USTs creates the liability for any leakage that may occur and the
possibility for long-term, costly remediation.
7. Landfills
Charles D. Lowder, Inc. Owner:
Peter's Creek Parkway
Winston-Salem, NC
Charles D. Lowder, Inc.
1705 Chardale Drive
Clemmons, NC
43
This facility, located approximately 45 meters (150 ft) north of
the intersection of NC 150 and SR 2983, is a dump site for
construction and demolition materials, spoiled earth, stone, stumps
and other solid materials. At present, the permit application and
site are under review by the Solid Waste Section of the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
8. Other Potentially Contaminated Properties
The files of the Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Sections of the
Division of Solid Waste Management were examined to determine whether
any other potential contamination sources exist within project
limits. Based on this record search, no other contaminated sites are
expected to impact this project.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The widening of NC 150 will benefit motorists by improving safety and
by increasing the traffic-carrying capacity of the roadway. The project
will better accommodate future development and associated traffic growth
that is likely in this area of Forsyth County. It is therefore concluded
that the proposed project will have an overall positive effect on the
surrounding area.
Based upon the findings of this report, the proposed improvements are
not expected to result in significant adverse environmental impacts. This
CE completes the environmental review.
RLB/plr
FIRYNAFS
NOrm" C/?AOLlNA OtPARTMuNT
c' TNANAl-oATATnON
01%nal0N Ow NlOMWAva
PLANNING ANO lNV1AONMwNT
sAANCN
I FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP I
NC 180, FROM MULTI-LANES
NEAR DAVIDSON CO. UNE TO
MULT14.ANES IN MNSTON-SALEIW
FORSY H COUNTY
TIP NO. R-2700
WINSTON-SALEM
D A V I D 5 O N
C 0 U N T Y
H. F. Vick
September 16, 1994, Page 2
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
Enclosure
cc: State Clearinghouse
N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
W.,5 vje-%,e
m N.
°00'
0
z4 ??
^?a'S:ate Route
MILE ROAD CLASSIFICATION
/
Heavyduty__ 4 LANE' a LANE Light-duty______
?.1;.c G LA.'v _'
Medium•duty -- Unimproved dirt
C3 U. S. Route 0 State Route
i I I"
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
February 22, 1995
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: NC 150 from Winston-Salem to near Davidson
County line, Forsyth County, R-2709, Federal Aid
Project STP-150(1), State Project 8.1622901, ER
95-8290
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of January 26, 1995, transmitting the historic structures
survey report by Ed Davis concerning the above project.
We concur that properties #1-4 are not eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places because they lack special historical or architectural significance.
The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
vDavi Brook
Deputy State Histor
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
Preservation Officer
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
G3

r??V
Regulatory Branch
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
October 11, 1994
Action ID. 199404710
Mr. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
OCT 1 3 1994
Z
Z2 C, `' OF
We have reviewed your letter of August 1, 1994, requesting
information for the proposed improvements to N.C. 150 located
from the present multi-lane section in Winston-Salem south to the
Davidson County line, adjacent to tributaries of South Muddy
Creek, Forsyth County, North Carolina, TIP NO. R-2709.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge
of excavated and /or fill material into waters of the United
States. The Corps of Engineers must assess the impacts of such
activities on the aquatic environment prior to issuing Department
of the Army permits. Authorization of fill activities within the
waters of the United States requires that the project be water
dependent and/or that no practicable alternatives are available.
Our initial review emphasis for NCDOT projects will focus on the
impacts to waters and or wetlands. However, if degradation to
other aspects of the natural environment (e.g., habitat of
endangered species) is considered to be of greater concern, an
alternative resulting in greater aquatic loses may be chosen as
preferred. In all cases, and in accordance with the Memorandum
of Agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
the Corps, the sequencing process of avoidance, minimization, and
mitigation of unavoidable wetland impacts will be satisfied prior
to the final permit decision.
-2-
The existing crossings of tributaries of South Muddy Creek
have impacted some-what degraded waters of the United States. It
is our present preferred alternative that any road upgrades be
accomplished on the existing road alignment and that the
additional impacts to jurisdictional waters be minimized as much
as practical. It is our understanding that at this point in
time, construction plans are not available for review. When
final plans are completed, including the extent and location of
development within waters and wetlands, you should contact us for
a final determination of the Department of the Army permit
requirements.
Mr. John Thomas is the point of contact for processing of
your Department of the Army permit for the proposed project.
Should you have questions, please contact Mr. Thomas, Raleigh
Regulatory Field Office, at telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
yne Wr ht
hief, Regulatory Branch
IPPINBIIB
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90
D Diesel truck 40 mph 50 ft. away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 50 mph 50 ft. away MODERATELY LOUD
B 70
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 5 feet away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE

10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Rearing
Conversation" by J. B. Ollshifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
FIGURE N2 - NOISE MEASUREMENT SITES
NC 150, Forsyth County
Davidson County Line to Winston-Salem
TIP T R-2709 State Project n 8.1622901
?1 Noise Measurement Sites

i
I
. i
1
i
1
t
END

3

jot 41_1kK6*-1_-
agow. ,
?I 391.E 1L91 / - '
72
wn ¦
LPL 299.
nu a
is F
AWL
au
=A&
., ?BEGIN- I
Z -.1
3Mi ?.
?• ^ l31z tw a oo
um s -
uu
II

i
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
• (Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to conti,-
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
TABLE N3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Leq)
NC 150
From Davidson County Line to Winston-Salem
Forsyth County
TIPM R-2709 State Projects 8.1622901
NOISE
LEVEL
SITE LOCATION DESCRIPTION (dBA)
1. NC 150, 100 Feet North of SR 3021 Grassy 71
2. NC 150, .76 Mile North of SR 2963 : Grassy 71
3. NC 150, .42 Mile North of Restiven Road Grassy 72
Note:
The ambient noise level sites were measured at 50 feet from the center
of the nearest lane of traffic.
TABLE N4 1/3
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES

NC 150
From Davidson County to Winston-Salem
Forsyth County
TIPM R-2709 State Project# 8.1622901
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMAT ION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID N LAND USE CATE
.................. GORY
.... NAME DISTANCE(ft)
.................. LEVEL NAM
..... ... E DISTANCE(ft)
............... -L- -Y- MAXIMUM

__..
........... INCREASE
Beginning of Projec t to SR 3021 (Friedburg Church Road)
1 Business C NC 150 130 L 65 NC 150 100 L - - " 72 + 7
2 Business C " 380 R 54 " 410 R - - 57 + 3
3 Business C " 230 L 60 " 200 L - - 65 + 5
4 Residence B " 190 L 61 160 L - - " 67 + 6
5 Residence B " 120 L 65 " 90 L --------------------- R/W--- -----------
6 Residence B " 110 L 66 " 80 L --------------------- R/W--- -----------
7 Residence B " 190 L 61 " 160 L - - * 67 + 6
8 Residence B 180 L 62 150 L - - * 68 + 6
9 Residence B " 120 L 65 " 90 L ---------------------R/W --------------
10 Residence B " 120 L 65 " 90 L --------------------- R/W--------------
" 65 " 90 L --------------------- R/W--------------
11 Residence B 120 L
12 Business C 110 R 66 140 R - - 69 + 3
13 Business C 180 R 62 " 210 R - - 64 + 2
14 Business C " 160 L 62 " 150 L - - 68 + 6
15 Residence B " 130 L 65 " 100 L - - * 72 + 7
16 Residence B " 80 R 68 " 110 R - - * 71 + 3
17 Residence B " 80 R 68 " 110 R - - * 71 + 3
18 Residence B " 120 R 60 " 150 R * 67 + 7
From SR 3021 (Friedburg Church Road) to Kesteven Road
19 Business C NC 150 200 L 61 NC 150 170 L - - 67 + 6
20 Business C 270 R 58 " 300 R - - 61 + 3
21 Business C 90 R 68 " 120 R - - 70 + 2
22 Residence B " 150 L 64 " 120 L - - * 70 + 6
22A Residence B 220 L 60 " 190 L - - * 66 + 6
22B Residence B " 310 L 57 " 280 L - - 62 + 5
23 Residence B " 180 L 62 " 150 L - - * 68 + 6
24 Residence B 190 R 62 " 220 R - - 64 + 2
25 Residence B " 200 L 61 " 170 L - - " 67 + 6
25E Residence B 190 L 62 " 160 L - - * 68 + 6
25F Residence B " 220 L 60 " 190 L - - " 66 + 6
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existin g or proposed roadways. -L --> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. Y -=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
TABLE N4 2/3
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 150
From Davidson County to Winston-Salem
Forsyth County
TIP# R-2709 State Project# 8.1622901
AMBIENT NEAREST NO"
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS L1:," ,
ID N LAND USE CATEGORY
...................... NAME DISTANCE(ft)
.................. LEVEL
..... NAME DISTANCE(ft)
.................. -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
........................ INCREASE
........
From SR 3021 (Fried burg Church Road) to Kesteven Road (Cont'd)
26 Residence B NC 150 180 R 62 NC 150 210 R - - 65 + 3
27 Residence B '• 180 R 62 " 210 R - - 65 + 3
28 Residence B 180 R 62 •' 210 R - - 65 + 3
29 Residence B " 240 L 59 " 210 L - - 65
30 Residence B 170 L 63 " 140 L - - * 69 + 6
31 Residence B " 170 L 63 " 140 L - - * 69 + 6
32 Residence B " 170 R 63 •' 200 R - - 65 + 2
33 Residence B 140 R 64 " 170 R - - * 67 + 3
34 Residence B " 230 L 60 " 200 L - - 65 + 5
35 Residence B to 190 L 62 " 160 L - - * 68 + 6
36 Residence B " 160 L 63 to 130 L - - * 70 + 7
37 Residence B " 190 R 62 •' 220 R - - 64 + 2
38 Residence B to 180 R 62 " 210 R - - 65 + 3
39 Residence B of 160 R 63 " 190 R - - * 66 + 3
40 Residence B to 160 L 63 " 130 L - - to 70 + 7
40B Residence B " 220 L 60 '• 190 L - - * 66 + 6
41 Residence B " 190 L 62 " 160 L - - to 68 + 6
41A Residence B " 190 L 62 " 160 L - - to 68 + 6
42 Residence B " 160 L 63 " 130 L - - * 67 0 4
43 Residence B " 140 R 65 " 170 R - - * 69 0 4
From Kesteven Road to End of Project
44 Residence B NC 150 140 R 65 NC 150 170 R - - * 67 i
45 Residence B to 140 L 65 to 110 L - - * 71 + 6
46 Residence B '• 200 L 62 to 170 L - - * 67 + 5
47 Residence B •' 160 L 64 It 130 L - - * 70 1 fi
48 Residence B " 170 L 64 " 140 L - - to 69
49 Church E " 110 R 67/42 " 140 R - - 69/44 + 2/2
50 Residence B " 110 R 67 " 140 R - - to 69 + 2
51 Residence B " 290 L 58 " 260 L - - 63 5
52 Residence B 160 R 64 " 190 R - - to 66 + 2
53 Residence B " 220 L 61 It 190 L - - * 66 5
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existi ng or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y --> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exteri or/interior (58/48). to -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).

TABLE Nd 3/3
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 150
From Davidson County to Winston-Salem
Forsyth County
' TIPM R-2709 State Project# 8.1622901
• AMBIENT NEAREST NOIcr
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEV"
-D-# LAND S--CATEGO`Y NAME- = DISTANCE(ft) - LEVEL NAME f6D.STANCE(ft) --L-=--:'g -Y3=_- MAXIMUM INCREASE
From Kesteven Road to End of Project (Cont'd)
54 Residence B NC 150 220 L
_
61 NC 150 190 L
- " 66
+ 5
55 Residence B
" 310
L
58 " 280 L -
- 62
+ 4
56 Church E
170
R
64/<40 " 200 R -
- 66/41
+ 2/1
57 Residence B
" 90
R
69 " 120 R -
- " 71
+ 2
58 Residence B
120
"
R
67 " 150 R -
- " 69
+ 2
7

NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribut:ii,w
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. •Y--> Noise level from other contributing i •a we ;•.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). " -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part %72).
TABLE N5
FBWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 150
From Davidson County Line to Winston-Salem
Forsyth County
TIP# R-2709 State Project# 8.1622901
Maximum Predicted Contour
Leq Noise Levels Distances
dBA (Maximum)
Description 50' 100' 200' 72 dBA 67 dBA
1. NC 150, From Begin to SR 3021
2. NC 150, From SR 3021 to Kesteven Rd.
3. NC 150, From Kesteven Road to End
73 69 64 100' 171'
74 70 64 106' 178'
74 70 65 110' 186'
TOTAL
Approximate Number of Impacted-
Receptors According to
Title 23 CFR Part 772
A B C D E,
0 7 1 0 0
0 18 0 0 0
0 11 0 0 0
0 36 1 0 0
NOTES - 1. 501, 1001, and 200' distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
NC 150
From Davidson County Line to Winston-Salem
Forsyth County
TIP# R-2709 State Project# 8.1622901
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
Section <.0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >- 25 Increases(1) Criteria(2}
•

1. Begin to SR 3021 0 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 0
2. SR 3021 to Kesteven Rd. 0 13 18 0 0 0 0 0 0
:3. Kesteven Road to End 0 7 8 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTALS 0 25 34 0 0 0 0 0 0
(3) As defined by only a substantial Increase (lien bo1'{-oio c,r 7-'. k ;••
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2.
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE 1
JOB: R-2709, NC 150/SR 3010 Forsyth Co. RUN: NC 150/SR 3010 BUILD 1999
DATE : 06/28/95 TIME: 09:53
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
--
---
VS
t U --------------------------
- 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S
- 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E) ZO
ATIM - 108. CM
= 60. MINUTES
MIXH - 400. M
AMB = 1.
8 PPM
LIN K VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION *
*
LINK COORDINATES (M)
X1 Y1 X2
"
Y2 *
*
LENGTH
(M)
-----
BRG TYPE
(DEG)
----------
VPH

-------
EF
(G/MI)
-------
H
(M)
-- ---
W
(M)
-----
V/C:

-----
QUE0;1
(VEH)
--------
--
1. NC 150 NB APPR *
2. NC 150 NB QUEUE "
3. NC 150 NBLT QUE "
4. NC 150 NB DEP *
5. NC 150 SB APPR "
6. NC 150 SB QUEUE *
7. NC 150 SBLT QUE "
8. NC 150 SB DEP *
9. SR 3010 EB APPR "
10. SR 3010 EB QUEUE '
11. SR 3010 EBLT QUEUE "
12. SR 3010 EB DEP "
13. SR 3010 WB APPR "
14. SR 3010 WB QUEUE •
15. SR 3010 WELT QUEUE "
16. SR 3010 WB DEP " -----------
5.5
5.5
0.0
5.5
-5.5
-5.5
0.0
-5.5
-304.8
-9.1
-9.1
0.0
304.8
9.1
9.1
0.0 ----- ----
-304.8
-9.1
-9.1
0.0
304.8
9.1
9.1
0.0
-1.8
-1.8
0.0
-1.8
1.8
1.8
0.0
1.8 ----------
5.5
5.5
0.0
5.5
-5.5
-5.5
14.9
-5.5
0.0
-9.2
-5.2
304.8
0.0
9.4
8.3
-304.8 -
--------
0.0 '
-27.4 "
-7.2 •
304.8 *
0.0 *
16.4 "
7.4 "
-304.8 *
-1.8 '
-1.8 "
-32.9 "
-1.8 *
1.8 "
1.8 *
-7.4 *
1.8 * -----
305.
18.
2.
305.
305.
7.
15.
305.
305.
0.
33.
305.
305.
0.
7.
305. 360.
180.
360.
360.
180.
360.
97.
180.
90.
270.
173.
90.
270.
90.
187.
270. AG
AG
AG
AG
AG
AG
AG
AG
AG
AG
AG
AG
AG
AG
AG
AG 780.
8.
16.
840.
840.
3.
14.
780.
30.
0.
16.
130.
130.
0.
15.
30. 12.8
100.0
100.0
12.8
12.8
100.0
100.0
12.8
12.8
100.0
100.0
12.8
12.8
100.0
100.0
12.6 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 13.4
13.4
9.8
13.4
13.4
13.4
9.8
13.4
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
0.32
-.38

0.26
0.42

0.01
1.54

0.06
0.51
3.0
0.3

1.2
2.5

0.0
5.5

0.1
1.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
• COORDINATES (M) `
RECEPTOR " X Y Z "
-------------------------R--------------------_----------------"
1. REC 22 (NW CORNER) ` -36.6 18.0 1.8
2. REC 21 (SE CORNER) * 32.9 -47.9 1.8
3. REC 23 (NE CORNER) " 60.4 72.8 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 1.-360.
WIND c CONCENTRATION
ANGLE " (PPM)
(DEGR)" REC1 REC2 REC3
------"------------------
14M R '% . 2 2.3 , 2.2
DEGR. " 11 322 220
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 PACE 2
JOB: R-2709, NC 150/SR 3010 Forsyth Co. RUN: NC 150/SR 3010 BUILD 2004
DATE: 06/28/95 TIME: 09:54
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD = 0.0 CM/S 20 = 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 400. M AMB a 1.8 PPM t
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION ' LINK COORDINATES (M) " LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 "
" (M)
---- (DEC)
-----
-----
------- (G/MI)
------- (M)
----- (M)
----
------- (VEH)
-------
----
1. ---
NC ----------------
150 NB APPR - *--
* ---------
5.5 ----------
-304.8 ----------
5.5 ---------
--
0.0 * -----
305. 360. AG 968. 10.3 0.0 13.4
2. NC 150 NB QUEUE * 5.5 -9.1 5.5 -32.3 " 23. 180. AG 7. 100.0 0.0 13.4 0.40 3.9
3. NC 150 NBLT QUE * 0.0 -9.1 0.0 -6.5 * 3. 360. AG 14. 100.0 0.0 9.8 -.50 0.4
4. NC 150 NB DEP " 5.5 0.0 5.5 304.8 * 305. 360. AG 1030. 10.3 0.0 13.4
5. NC 150 SB APPR * -5.5 304.8 -5.5 0.0 " 305. 180. AG 1030. 10.3 0.0 13.4
6. NC 150 SB QUEUE * -5.5 9.1 -5.5 18.9 * 10. 360. AG 3. 100.0 0.0 13.4 0.33 1.6
7. NC 150 SBLT QUE " 0.0 9.1 18.2 7.0 • 18. 97. AG 12. 100.0 0.0 9.8 0.52 3.1
8. NC 150 SB DEP " -5.5 0.0 -5.5 -304.8 * 305. 180. AG 968. 10.3 0.0 13.4
9. SR 3010 EB APPR " -304.8 -1.8 0.0 -1.8 * 305. 90. AG 35. 10.3 0.0 9.8
10. SR 3010 EB QUEUE * -9.1 -1.8 -9.2 -1.8 * 0. 270. AG 0. 100.0 0.0 9.8 0.01 0.0
11. SR 3010 EBLT QUEUE " -9.1 0.0 -3.9 -43.6 " 44. 173. AG 13. 100.0 0.0 9.8 1.77 7.3
12. SR 3010 EB DEP " 0.0 -1.8 304.8 -1.8 * 305. 90. AG 170. 10.3 0.0 9.8
13. SR 3010 WB APPR * 304.8 1.8 0.0 1.8 " 305. 270. AG 170. 10.3 0.0 9.8
14. SR 3010 WB QUEUE ' 9.1 1.8 9.5 1.8 * 0. 90. AG 0. 100.0 0.0 9.8 0.07 0.1
15. SR 3010 WBLT QUEUE * 9.1 0.0 7.9 -10.6 • 11. 187. AG 13. 100.0 0.0 9.8 0.55 1.8
16. SR 3010 WB DEP * 0.0 1.8 -304.8 1.8 * 305. 270. AG 35. 10.3 0.0 9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR " X Y Z
------------------------- "-------------------------------------"
1. REC 22 (NW CORNER) " -36.6 18.0 1.8 "
2. REC 21 (SE CORNER) * 32.9 -47.9 1.8 "
3. REC 23 (NE CORNER) * 60.4 72.8 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 1.-360.
WIND " CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DECR)" REC1 REC2 REC3
T
------"------------------
MAX * 2.3 2.3 2.2
DEGR. " lUl 322 220
TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE 3
JOB: R-2709, NC 150/SR 3010 Forsyth Co. RUN: NC 150/SR 3010 BUILD 2019
DATE: 06/28/95 TIME: 10:00
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 400. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION
*
*
LINK COORDINATES (M)
X1 Y1 X2
•
Y2 "
LENGTH
(M)
ERG TYPE
(DEG)
VPH
EF
(G/MI)
H
(M)
w
(M)
v/C

--
Q101" ,
(VEH)
-------- -
-- -------------- ----- ------- ------- ----- ----- ----
1.
2.
3. NC
NC
NC 150 NB APPR
150 NB QUEUE
150 NBLT QUE "
*
" 5.5
5.5
0.0 -304.8
-9.1
-9.1 5.5
5.5
0.0 0.0 *
-45.3 *
-4.7 * 305.
36.
4. 360.
180.
360. AG
AG
AG 1530.
7.
13. 9.0
100.0
100.0 0.0
0.0
0.0 13.4
13.4
9.8
0.62
-.77
6.0
0.7
4.
5.
6.
7. NC
NC
NC
NC 150 NB DEP
150 SB APPR
150 SS QUEUE
150 BELT QUE *
*
"
* 5.5
-5.5
-5.5
0.0 0.0
304.8
9.1
9.1 5.5
-5.5
-5.5
32.1 304.8 *
0.0 *
26.6 *
5.3 " 305.
305.
18.
32. 360.
180.
360.
97. AG
AG
AG
AG 1600.
1600.
3.
11. 9.0
9.0
100.0
100.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 13.4
13.4
13.4
9.8

0.52
0.80

2.9
!).4
8. NC 150 SB DEP " -5.5 0.0 -5.5 -304.8 " 305. 180. AG 1530. 9.0 0.0 13.4
9.
10.
11. SR
SR
SR 3010 EB APPR
3010 EB QUEUE
3010 EBLT QUEUE "
"
" -304.8
-9.1
-9.1 -1.8
-1.8
0.0 0.0
-9.2
-6.0 -1.8 •
-1.8 "
-26.3 " 305.
0.
26. 90.
270.
173. AG
AG
AG 50.
0.
12. 9.0
100.0
100.0 0.0
0.0
0.0 9.8
9.8
9.8
0.01
1.15
0.0
4.4
12. SR 3010 EB DEP * 0.0 -1.8 304.8 -1.8 " 305. 90. AG 290. 9.0 0.0 9.8
13.
14.
15. SR
SR
SR 3010 WB APPR
3010 WB QUEUE
3010 WELT QUEUE "
"
" 304.8
9.1
9.1 1.8
1.8
0.0 0.0
9.7
5.6 1.8 •
1.8 "
-29.2 • 305.
1.
29. 270.
90.
187. AG
AG
AG 290.
0.
11. 9.0
100.0
100.0 0.0
0.0
0.0 9.8
9.8
9.8
0.11
0.92
0.1
4.9
16. SR 3010 WE DEP * 0.0 1.8 -304.8 1.8 * 305. 270. AG 50. 9.0 0.0 9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
"
RECEPTOR
-°----------------------"---
1. REC 22 (NW CORNER) :
2. REC 21 (SE CORNER) "
3. REC 23 (NE CORNER) "
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
COORDINATES (M) "
X Y Z "
-------------------------------
-36.6 18.0 1.6
32.9 -47.9 1.8 "
60.4 72.8 1.8
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
r
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 1.-360.
WIND " CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* RECI REC2 REC3
------"------------------
MAX * 2.4 2.5 2.2
DEGR. " 16 337 193
R-2709
Forsyth County
December, 1993
F I QrTME 3
3-999 AND 2-03-S) AVERAGE DAILY 'rP AFF I C
,IZM19 174
L4
e
1- 165 a ~ 1-
2 -1 1 i- 4
i
2
L
Sides Road ?
SR-2932 i
2
s
12 Sides Road
SR-2932
t: r 2
L- a ?.
, 165 4
170
6
7
Ocala Lane

L?
L-
L?
>u ?
164 6
1 I.
I r
la J--
184 ,
,51IS
L L-
Iz
154 ?
1 i" 3
t r
1 3
L?
1 166
r
L,, 1
166
1M1iSM7
A
f
2
4
Sina Lane
4
As
Page 1 of 3
R-2709
Forsyth County
December, 1993
NC-150
From Existing Multi-lane in Forsyth County
to Existing Multi-lane in Davidson County
Estimated 1999/2019 Average Daily Traffic in Hundreds

Q
16
A
A'

5
5
89
167 < • e9
• 167
L_ a
6
151 ~'
4
`-
Kesteven Road

o - -? 1 r
1
9
3
-' 9
x
1
6 1
6
21 l t 22
,
L 2
3
3
s
Chesborough Road
1 SR-3086
1 t r s
>? 1
157 3
1
160 1 180
L
17
a
-1-
40
1
7
s
3 J I L f-11 Brighton Road
s J -i 1 r SR-3010

za
i 14
4
29

n
1 t

,
153
L Z
9 12
5
f f$ Rshel Road
t
12

SR-2983
7A A 25
144 16
t
I
,6
A As
Page 2 of 3
R-2709
Forsyth County
December, 1993
NC-150
From Existing Multi-lane in Forsyth County
to Existing Multi-Jane in Davidson County
Estimated 1999/2019 Average Daily Traffic in Hundreds
B B'
1w f) 11w
Friedberg Church Road 29 'j
SR-3021 12 222
29 2
7
i
-1 t
?. za
7 138
1451 1 14a
5
75
2?
it 34
29
135,
:9
34 sff
f- 12
-lir ?s
s 85
29 94 12
1 135
Hickory Tree Road
SR-1508
Page 3 of 3
.\?'•?"?``??/lM-/99```x• n' ??• ?',-.??_ -• rs-T?% `v?? ?•i??li....? 1 rJ/:•
.\ j''?? X11 ? -? '. '. (, ../? ,.?.
Ne X9.76 •.?' ?. _i/n?
"i L)
??` •w.l`- •i1s"??'?i./r\1'+,./? t• 'f.'' r ?'r.J > 11. I.M. n.IL' !? ??I????i j G'
PZ?
???? .1 r• .lr- to ° ?/U 1?? I : ?i `1,- f?/'. e_t
y lr?•• : 1" fi a ?`'• i' `. ?.--ZIA ?` .rte 71 L V
t4ov
t .f J .`.
` •`?? /l\ Go" Goufsr Ill
r o\?V :-.1??--' / .?"
PIP
i I ? i ? ' ?- 1 I1, • ? ? f '?. Ali`,-_J??N ?• 1-? / ` `'????/??'? (^')
10
-?' ?i''-a.[_-/ hrt• ?.r :?=3'i?y?f J 1?•• ?r ?•'?-.. ; Cr?.1 "? 3 W
Jy'O W
RSYT
_i?T"? ?AV1BbON"?'CO ."5 F LL
?? fi-.?"?'^?? ''?w'I •- L1L•J ??r+x'17•: '+ ? _` '^?,11
i?' r ?• r'li l i? ??r+r?•- ^••? ' ,?• , _ 1 /', / •f•: ./1 I '? :: J'. :? ri???1 , ?? ?\\.:' '
IPPINBlirl

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Division of Land Resources
James C;. Martin, Governor PROJECT RsvlBw COMMENTS
-1
William W. Cobey, Jr.. Secretary
Project Number: County: 6
RECEIVED

LITY SEA- ?..i
Project Name: =•' l
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact ' geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
? The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Uelgh. N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affinnadve Action Employer
A Z.
-_)Ic,Jf, ? /l1 'I•,^I\/LI:, _";•\'I•?•.E";'' I :`.i. I- II•.:\. ------?f-?---C?-C?-??---
I ?,?tU t:Cv
6-au-n•-A,cricy l'rojcct review l\csponse
h T?' G l A7 . ???r?-? ,..?: pc Of Project
rc)ec_ .ran:: _/1/ 150
r--, The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for ail water system
iMprovemenu must be approved by the Division o? E vironmental Health prior to:the aw
?--? ard
of a contract or the initiation of construction (as requ::-ed by 15A NCP.C 18C .0300 et. seq.).
For information, contact the Public Water Supply Se:t'on, [phone].
r-I This project will be classified as a non-cocnmunlr; puctic water supply and must comply with
L--J state and federal drinking water monitoring requ.rerne-cs. For more information the applicant
should contact the Public Water Suppl), Section, (91c) 733-2321.
feet of adjacent
r-- If this project is constructed as proposea, we will reccmmerd closure of
waters co the harvest of shellfish. For information -,garding the shellfishsanitation progra
:, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sa :icac::n Branch at [phone].
The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for -.his project -na produce a mosquito bretding•problern.
For information concerning aopropr. - mosquito :ontc•ol measures, the applicant should
contact the Public Health Pest Manage:::ent Section t (919) 726-897C.
,--? The applicant should be 'advised that prior cc :he removal or demolition of dilapidatec
?-- structures, an estenstve rodent contro: program be necessary in order to prevent the
-n graciori of the rodents to ndjacenc are: . I He : fer.-n2z1on. concerning rodent- contro!
L T
contact the local heatc„ department or 'ne Public ? _-_u:.7 Pest Vlanageme -. e-tion at L919
7 3 3-6407 .
--? The applicant should be advised to contact t:Le local health department regarding the'
?---? re uirements for sepc'c tank installations (as rec;uires .under 15A NCAC 18A .19C0 et. seq.
q.
For information concerning septic tank and other or-site waste disposal methods, contact th
(919) 7-,3-2895.
On-Site Wastewater Section I-
r-? The applicant should be advised to contract the total health department regarding the sanicae
t-? facilities required 'tor this project.
If existing wave: lines will be relocaced durin, ch_ construction, plans for the water li;
relocation must be submitted to the Division or En- ?ronmental Health, Public `eater Supt:
Section, Plan Preview Blanch, 1330 St. Mary's St:eec. Raleigh. North Carol'r,a, (919) 733-24E
h? 1
ction Branch ace
reviewer -
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Office:
Project Number: Due Date:
9 '?- ?4
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
n. :.? mow.. .i.r .... ...r.i. .,.. .¦., ee ...,i nrr.a ....i?...,•s,• .... ••.e .e..e.?? ..r .?„ r......
All applications. information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Process
Regional Office. Time
(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
? Permit to construct it operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 Days
facilities. sewer system extensions. d sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPOES • permit to discharge into surface water andior Application 180 days before begin activity. On•s)le inspection 90.120 days
? permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPOES Reply (N A)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPOES
permit•whicnever is later.
30 days
? Water Use Permit Pre•spolication technical conference usually necessary
INiAi
7 Days
Well Construction Permit Complete apWication must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well. (15 Days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 Days
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
? Permit to construct d operate Air Pollution Abatement
f
ili
/
15A NCAC 21H
E
S
NIA 60 Days
90 D
ties and
or
ources as per
.
ac
mission (
aysi
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 Days
NCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733.0820 (90 days)

? Comotea Source Permit required unoer 15A NCAC 20.0800.
The Seoimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity An erosion Q sed)mentatio
control plan will be required it one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 20 days
days before beginning activity. A lee of S30 for the tint acre and 520.00 for each additional acre or part must accomoanv the clan 130 Davs)
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the relernnced Local Ordinance: 130 (3ays)
on-site Inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
? Mining Permit vanes with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bona (60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
? North Carolina Bummg permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
? Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required.11 more 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than live acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (NIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual bum is planned."

?
F
NIA 90.120 days
NIA
acilities
Oil Refining (
)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.

? Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
Dam Salety Permit inspect construction. certify construction is according to EHNR approv.
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces-
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of 5200.00 must ac•
company the application. An additional processing lee based on a
oercenla a or lne total project cost will be required upon completion
ti ,id Continued on reverse
NCWFC..HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:919-52"'0-9"?'3i
.?P 11J 21 rdo .101 i- . a.-
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ',
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project CooEtore/4Habitat Conservation Program ?ur,.
DATE: September 2, 1994
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and
wildlife concerns for NC 150 widening from multi-
lanes near Davidson county to existing multi-lanes
in Winston-Salem, Forsyth County, North Carolina,
TIP No. R-2709, SCH Project No. 95-0085.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H.
Franklin Vick of the NCDOT for our concerns regarding
impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the
subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C.
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
proposed improvements, and our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-
667d).
NCWRC is particularly concerned about the crossing of
South Fork Muddy Creek. The Bog Turtle (Cleamiys
muhlenbergii), federally listed as a candidate species (C2)
and state listed as threatened (T), has been found at a site
on this stream. Although this project will not cross the
site, turtles may use this stream as a travel corridor.
We have the following recommendations:
1. A survey for Bog Turtles be performed prior to
construction. This survey should be coordinated
with Chris McGrath, Mountain Region Project
NCWFC,HCF.FALLS LRKE TEL:919- -9 `?
Memo
Page 2
Ser 0_'94 10 ?1 N7.001 F.0=1
September 2, 1994
Leader, Nongame/Endangered Species Section, at
[phone].
2. If the existing drainage structures on South
Fork Muddy Creek require modification we request
that the stream be bridged or a "dry" box
culvert be placed to allow for turtle and other
wildlife passage.
3. If wetlands are impacted, mitigation will be
required. This mitigation could include
creation or enhancement of habitat for the Bog
Turtle.
4. NCDOT Best Management Practices should be
strictly enforced.
In addition to any specific comments or
recommendations, our general informational needs are
outlined below:
2. Description of fishery and wildlife resources
within the project area, including a listing of
federally or state designated threatened,
endangered, or special concern species. Potential
borrow areas to be used for project construction
should be included in the inventories. A listing
of designated plant species can be developed
through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
Cecil C. Frost, Coordinator
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
In addition, the NCWRC's Nongame and Endangered
Species Program maintains databases for locations
of vertebrate wildlife species. While there is no
charge for the list, a service charge for computer
time is involved. Additional information may be
obtained from:
Randy Wilson, Manager
Nongame and Endangered Species Section
NCWFC. HCF FALL= L RKE TEL 919-E2S-9:?9 3ep O? 4 In _L hlu .001 F . ??
Memo
Page 3
September 2, 1994
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N. C. 27604-1188
[phone].
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by
the project. The need for channelizing or
relocating portions of streams crossed and the
extent of such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted
by the project. Wetland acreages should include
all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other
drainage, or filling for project construction.
Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE). If the COE is not consulted, the
person delineating wetlands should be identified
and criteria listed.:
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland
wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed project.
Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in
loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife
habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or
compensating for direct and indirect degradation
in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which
analyzes the environmental effects of highway
construction and quantifies the contribution of
this individual project to environmental
degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural
resources which will result from secondary
development facilitated by the improved road
access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be
coordinated with other state, municipal, or
private development projects, a description of
these projects should be included in the
environmental document, and all project sponsors
should be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the
early planning stages for this project. if we can further
NCWFC, HCF , FRLLS LRK,E TEL : 919- °-98:,'9 Sep 0:,?4 !V:2 == NO A01 P.05
Memo Page 4 September 2, 1994
assist your office, please contact David Cox, Highway
Project Coordinator, at [phone].
cc: David Sawyer, District 7 Wildlife Biologist
Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist
Chris McGrath, Mountain Region NG/ES Project Leader
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
David Dell, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
¦
TAKE

United States Department of the Interior PRIDE IN
C E f
FISH A.ND WILDLIFE SERVICE ? Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
September 2, 1994
SEP 0 7 1994
DIVISION1OF
C? HIGHWAYS
Y ?Mv?40f?1?f
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27511-11201
Subject: Scoping Comments for NC 150, from multi-lanes near Davidson
County to existing multi-lanes in Winston-Salem, Forsyth County,
TIP #R-2709, Federal-Aid #STP-150, State Proj. 08.1622901.
Dear Mr. Vick:
Thank you for your letter of August ]., 1994, requesting comments on the
proposed project identified above. These comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
calls for widening NC 150 from a two-lane roadway to a 5-lane facility, with
no additional right-of-way required.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered (E) and/or
threatened (T) and/or species proposed for listing as endangered (PE) or
threatened (PT) which may occur in the proposed project corridor.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if it contained the following information:
1. A descript:c- f the fishery and wildlife resources within existing and
required additional right-of-way and any areas, such as borrow areas,
which may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed project.
2. A list of the wetland types which will be impacted. Wetland types
should follow the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory. This list should also give the acreage of each wetland type
to be affected by the project as determined by the Federal Manual for
Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
3. Engineering techhiques which will be employed for designing and
constructing any wetland crossings and/or relocated stream channels
along with the linear feet of any water courses to be relocated.
4. The cover types of upland areas and the acreage of each type which
would be impacted by the proposed project.
5. Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate,
reduce, or compensate for upland and wetlands habitat impacts
associated with the project. These measures should include plans
for replacing unavoidable wetland losses.
6. The environmental impacts which are likely to occur after
construction as a direct result of the proposed project (secondary
impacts) and an assessment of the extent to which the proposed
project will add to similar environmental impacts produced by
other, completed projects in the area (cumulative impacts).
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered, threatened,
and candidate species which occur in Forsyth County. The section of the
environmental document regarding protected species must contain the
following information:
1. A review of the literature and other information;
2. A description of any listed species or critical habitat that may be
affected by the action;
3. An analysis of the "effect of the action", as defined by CFR
402.02, on the species and habitat including consideration of
direct, indirect, cumulative effects, and the results of related
studies;
4. A description of the manner in: which the action may affect any
species or critical habitat;
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measure of potential
effects; and
6. Determination statement based on evaluation criteria.
Candidate species refer to any species being considered by the Service for
listing as endangered or threatened but not yet the subject of a proposed
rule. These species are not legally protected under the Act or subject to
its provisions, including Section 7, until formally proposed or listed as
threatened or endangered. New data could result in the formal listing of a
candidate species. This change would place the species under the full
protection of the Endangered Species Act, and necessitate a new survey if
its status in the project corridor is unknown. Therefore, it would be
prudent for the project to avoid any adverse impact to candidate species or
their habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be
contacted for information on species under State protection.
The service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress of this project, Including your
official determination of the impacts of this project. If our office can
supply any additional information or clarification, please contact David
Dell, highway projects coordinator, at 919-856-4520 (ext. 19).
Sincerely yocurs/
" Gantt
L.K. Mike
Supervisor
Enclosure
REVISED JULY 26, 1994
Forsyth County
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera) - E
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
These "Candidate"(C1 and C2) species are not legally protected under the
Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We
are providing the below list of candidate species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Bog turtle (C s muhlenberai) - C2
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
September 6, 1994
Memorandum
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Stephen Hall S L?
SUBJECT: Scoping -- Widen NC 150, Winston-Salem
REFERENCE: 95-0085
The Natural Heritage Program database contains a record for a
population of bog turtles (Clemmys muhlenbergii), a candidate for
federal listing and state-listed as Threatened, from a site along
Muddy Creek less than one mile downstream from the proposed
project corridor. This species is under active consideration for
federal listing and a survey of the project area should be
conducted for it. This survey, which should be conducted by
qualified biologists working during the appropriate seasons of
the year, should concentrate on the boggy or other wetland
habitats preferred by this species.
Whether or not the species is actually found, all suitable
habitat should be protected in this area, which would potentially
allow the species to reoccupy any vacant sites sometime in the
future. Appropriate mitigation for unavoidable loss of wetland
habitats should give a high priority to protecting known sites
occupied by this species, and to protecting habitat corridor that
link areas of suitable habitat.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, LTXXA
Health and Natural Resources 4 • •
Division of Environmental Management a
IT
10 OL
James Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
ID E F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
September 12, 1994
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart', Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0085; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to NC 150, TIP R-2709
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0535. 'alephone 919-733-7015 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycied/ 10% posy-consumer paper
Melba McGee
September 12, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be issued
until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on Actions
During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents DEM from
issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of Decision
(ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the document. If
the 401 Certification application is submitted for review prior to
issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended that the applicant
state that the 401 will not be issued until the applicant informs
DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
10707er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, MIA
Health and Natural Resources • v
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
A7L
James B. Hunt, Governor ? ? H N
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee 0-11--/
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 95-0085 - Scoping NC 150 Widening, Forsyth County
DATE: September 13, 1994
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The attached comments
list and describe information that is necessary for our divisions
to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project.
More specific comments will be provided during the environmental
review.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. The applicant is
encouraged to notify our commenting divisions if additional
assistance is needed.
attachments

V-

_ P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An E--ual Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
0 r e,c.v V
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: September 16, 1993
SUBJECT: NCDOT Scoping Meeting for widening of NC 150, Forsyth
County, TIP #R-2709.
Due to temporary staffing shortages, the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) will be unable to send a
representative to the scoping meeting for this project. A formal
scoping response, outlining our informational needs for
preparation of the environmental document, will be provided upon
request through the State Clearinghouse.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the early
planning stages for this project. If we can further assist your
office, please contact me at 704/652-2457.
cc: David Yow, Acting Highway Project Coordinator

... STyAR o
e W C'C • , 1 ???>?7
J?'hy w.w ?Nu'
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resource
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
September 16, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook ???
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Improvements to NC 150, Davidson and Forsyth
Counties, R-2709, 8.1622901, STP-150(1), 95-E-
4220-0085

T 2 a 1994'
'V OF
AYS P?
kCP
N1E?
e
f Archives and History
Division o
William S. Price, Jr., Director
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following
structures of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the
project:
Bud Foltz House (DV 175)
House (FY 252)
A map is enclosed showing the locations of the above listed properties.
Since the historic architectural resources survey was conducted over a decade
ago, additional properties which may be eligible for the National Register may be
located in the area of potential effect. We recommend that an architectural
historian survey and evaluate any properties over fifty years of age in the area of
potential effect which were not recorded during the 1983 survey, as well as
evaluate the National Register eligibility of the previously recorded properties.
Survey site files for Forsyth County are located at the Survey and Planning Branch
at 515 North Blount Street in Raleigh.
Since new right-of-way will not be acquired for this project, it is unlikely that any
archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project construction. We,
therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
`I
.a;

r 3 ,
*ki

-ilea td
r

It ,

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
October 11, 1994
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199404710
Mr. Franklin Vick, P.E,. Manager
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-5201
L?L
Dear Mr. Vick:
We have reviewed your letter of August 1, 1994, requesting
information for the proposed improvements to N.C. 150 located
from the present multi-lane section in Winston-Salem south to the
Davidson County line, adjacent to tributaries of South Muddy
Creek, Forsyth County, North Carolina, TIP NO. R-2709.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge
of excavated and /or fill material into waters of the United
States. The Corps of Engineers must assess the impacts of such
activities on the aquatic environment prior to issuing Department
of the Army permits. Authorization of fill activities within the
waters of the United States requires that the project be water
dependent and/or that no practicable alternatives are available.
Our initial review emphasis for NCDOT projects will focus on the
impacts to waters and or wetlands. However, if degradation to
other aspects of the natural environment (e.g., habitat of
endangered species) is considered to be of greater concern, an
alternative resulting in greater aquatic loses may be chosen as
preferred. In all cases, and in accordance with the Memorandum
of Agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
the Corps, the sequencing process of avoidance, minimization, and
mitigation of unavoidable wetland impacts will be satisfied prior
to the final permit decision.

-2-
The existing crossings of tributaries of South Muddy Creek
have impacted some-what degraded waters of the United States. It
is our present preferred alternative that any road upgrades be
accomplished on the existing road alignment and that the
additional impacts to jurisdictional waters be minimized as much
as practical. It is our understanding that at this point in
time, construction plans are not available for review. When
final plans are completed, including the extent and location of
development within waters and wetlands, you should contact us for
a final determination of the Department of the Army permit
requirements.
Mr. John Thomas is the point of contact for processing of
your Department of the Army permit for the proposed project.
Should you have questions, please contact Mr. Thomas, Raleigh
Regulatory Field Office, at telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch

-3-
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Thomas Welborn, Chief
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Region IV
Wetlands Regulatory Unit
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries
Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, NC 28516
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental
Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Mr. Robert Lee
District Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27610
Ms. L. K. (Mike) Gantt
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
September 12, 1994
NER4BAN=
TO: Melba McGee, L??e????gislative Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart?,??Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0085; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to NC 150, TIP R-2709
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
Melba McGee
September 12, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be issued
until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on Actions
During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents DEM from
issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of Decision
(ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the document. If
the 401 Certification application is submitted for review prior to
issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended that the applicant
state that the 401 will not be issued until the applicant informs
DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
10707er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
c Ff 3 1994
WETLANDS
WATER UI,t.ITY SEC?;!?
. %

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SAM HUNT
GoveliNOli SECRETARY
t
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
October 11, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Richard Brewer awl
+" g r'
SUBJECT: Notes from Scoping Meeting for R-2709, NC 150
from multi-lanes near Davidson Co. line to
multi-lanes in Winston-Salem: State Project
No. 8.2141201.
The following attended the September 30, 3:00 pm meeting
in the Planning and Environmental Conference Room:
Ray Moore
Jerry Snead
Eric Galamb
Greg Purvis
Mark Cole
Keith Johnston
Cindy Satterwhite
Robin Stancil
David B. Foster
Mike Patton
Connie McGee
Mohammad Mustafa
Danny Rogers
Richard Davis
Richard Brewer
Structure Design
Hydraulics
DEM
Traffic Control
Traffic Control
PhotoJrammetry
Statewide Planning
SHPO
DEHNR
Division 9
Division 9
Program Development
Program Development
P & E
P & E
Major issues presented and discussed at the subject
meeting are listed below:
1. Discussion on the cross-section kicked off the
meeting. DOT owns the right-of-way (200') for a
four-lane divided facility, and both project termini
will tie-in to divided cross-sections. Division 9
recommends a five-lane undivided highway. Both
alternatives will be studied in the planning
document.
2. Whether to use a 46' or 30' median in the four-lane
divided alternative was debated. Both median widths
will be addressed in the planninL, study.
v
a

I . Cindy Satterwhite of Statewide Planning pointed out
the need to control access along NC 150. She said
that building a 4-lane divided facility with no
control of access will create many driveways and
traffic signals, compromising the safety and
capacity of this NC route. Examples where no
control of access on high-volume multi-lane
facilities results in degraded operating conditions
are US 1 and C;S 70 in Raleigh and the '--tors Creek
Parkwav in tiinston-Salem.
4. The City of Winston-Salem is proposing ,i extension
of Clemmonsville Road west of NC 150 that will
interse?_t R-2709 near Sales Road (SR 2932).
Eventually, this facility may be extended eastward
to Teagi-:; Road, providing an intracity southern
loop. The junction of this facility and NC 150 may
be a grade-separated interchan e. if volumes %varrant.
5. Ray Moore of Structure Desi°n suited t:zc one bridge
on the project. over Nluddy Creek, iiad a sufficiency
rating of 70.?. He thought the briddge deck could be
widened from ?S' to 30' (the minimum width standard
for a bridge on a rural major collector such as NC
150?. One factor in rehabilitating the bridge ar
not will depend on the selected cross-section.
6. Jerry Snead of Hydraulics said his group would
perform a scour test of the bridge. Also, existing
culverts would be lengthened at the two tributary
crossings south of Muddy Creek.
The SHPO reported there are no known archaeol02V
sites in the project area, and that a reconnaissance
survey would not be needed. Also, there were no
historic properties listed on or eligible for the.
National Resister of Historic Places within the
project's area of Potential Effect. Three houses
over fifty years old were identified, and a field
study was recommended.
S. Eric Galamb of DEM stated that ?J • C'reek and its
tributary, Leak Creek, are Class I quality
streams. Customary Best Managem t Practices of
sediment and erosion control are recommended for
this project.
9. Dave Foster of DEHNR stated there were no major
environmental issues associated with this project,
and the EA and FONSI documeritat ion requirement could
be reduced. with FHWA approval, to a Categorical
Exclusion. Any impact on wetlands coula likely
be handled by a Nationwide Permit from the Corps of
Engineers.
1? << l^C,4J

STATE OF NORTH CAROLI NA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JP, DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
SFP - 8 1993
WAUR 0L1;'.I
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SRAI:1ARY
September 7, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Ma er
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for NC 150 from multi-lanes
near Davidson County Line to existing multi-lanes in
Winston-Salem, Forsyth County, R-2709, State Project
8.1622901
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for September 30, 1993 at 3:00-P. M. in the Planning
and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room You may provide us
with your comments at the meeting or mail them t us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part f our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or he scoping sheets, please
call Richard Brewer, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
RB/plr
Attachments
L
(L

i
9
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date 8/13/93
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design _
TIP # R-2709
Project # 8.1622901
F.A. Project # _STP-150(1)
Division 9
Fo.rsy_t h
County
Route(s) NC 150
Functional Classification Urban Major Arterial
Length 4.35 km _( 2 . 7_ miles)
Purpose of Project:. Widen NC 150 from the multi-lane sectj(_;r,
near line Davidson County to e x i s t i n g multi-lanes in Wi nstc,)-
Sa 1 em to reduce congestion and improve saf et y _ _ U _ong t h i s
h i ghwa)?_ Through and turning traffic ror adjacent land deve 1 opment would also __be__acuon-,rrodat ed by these i mprovement s .
Description of Project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work: NC DOT recommends NC 150 be widened from a
2-lane _roadway toa_multi-lane facility rrom the existing
iixuIti - lane section near_the _Davidson County 1_ine to the
existing multi-lane section in Winston-Salem. The cross-
section_be_i_ng_pro_posed is a 4_-lane divided hi__ghway_, with a
14.0 m (46') graded median on a 61.0 m_(200') right of way.__
It is proposed that the 2 additional lanes [7.3 m 24' wide
be constructed west of t rie_ ex i st_i nq_2_-1 ane roadway. _
Type of environmental document to be prepared: EA & FONSI
Environmental study schedule: _ EA 7/94 _
FONSI 5/95
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($)
How and when will this be paid?
Type of Access Control: Full
, or M
Partial None X
-Pale L-
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Number of Interchanges _0 Grade Separations 0
Stream Crossings _3 (Bridge #35; two unlisted
culverts)
Typical Section: Existing: 2 lanes, 7.2 m (244 shoulder
section
Proposed: 4-lane divided, with 14.0 m (46'
qraded median.
Traffic (ADT): 1991 Design Year
% TTST % Duals
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO _X_ 3R _
Design Speed: 60 mph_
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies). . . . . . . . . . $
Right of Way (including relocation,
utilities, and acquisition) . . . . . $
Force Account Items . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . . . . . . $
TOTAL PLANNING COST ESTIMATE . . . . $
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,600 ,000

Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 360 , 000

TOTAL TIP COST ESTIMATE . . . . $ 4,960, 000
-Page _'-
List any special features, such as railroad involvement,
which could affect cost or schedule or project:
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
Pavement
Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Milling & Recyling. . . . . . . . . . . $
-rcrr1 1 sat T . . . . . . . . $ /Z 8, 27J
Shoulders
Paved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earthen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ X6 7
Subsurface items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subg rade and Stabilization, . . . . . . . . $ /SS,' 7Y--?--
Drainage (1 i st any special items) . . . . . $ 39 9 Uo o. -
_ Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Structures
Bridge Rehab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ X
New Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 8 von.-
Remove Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . _
New Culvert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Culvert Extension . . . . . . . . . . . $ _
Retaining Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Noise Walls . . . . . . . $ _
Other Misc. J??!??^/,.STz,? ;r?R 8/aaa. -
Concrete Curb and Gutter. . . . . . . . . $
Concrete S i dewa'. k . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Fencing
_ W.W .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
C.L .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ -
Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 7S," Dorms.
Landscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 74svd -
Signing
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ -
Upgraded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Signals
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
RR Signals
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ _
With/without arms . . . . . . . . . . . $
If 3R
Drainage Safety Enhancement . . . . . . $
Roadside Safety Enhancement . . . . . . $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade. . . . . $
Pavement Markings
Paint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
-Page 3-
Thermoplastic . . . . . . . . $ 6 7 7,9
Raised Pavement Markers . . . . . . . . $
Delineators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Other (clearing, grubbing, misc., and mob.) $
CONTRACT COST Subtotal . . . . . . . . $/?3?. av?-
Engineering & Contingencies . . . . . . . . . . $ l05 0 o d.
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ :
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
CONTINGENCIES Subtotal. . . . . . . . $ 66?? ooo. -
Right-of-Way
Will Contain within existing R/W? Yes
Existing Width
New R/W needed Estimated cost. $
Easements: Type Width _
Estimated cost. $
Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
RIGHT OF WAY SUBTOTAL . . . . . . . . $
No
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST. . . . . . . . . $ boo, y??, -
Prepared by: J)14111? Llly/70^1 Date
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved' by:
Init. Date
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammet ry
Prel. Est. Engr. DMG
Ping & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engr.
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Init. Date
B.O.T. Member
Mgr Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precon
Chief Engineer-Op
Sec Roads Officer
Construction Branch
Roadside Environ.
Maintenance Branch
4??-3 Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
DEHNR
(Scoping Sheet for local officials sent to Div. Engineering)
'If you are not in agreement with proposed project or
scoping, note your proposed revisions or comments here:
-Page 4-

3vev
09• ]1!7

AREA SHOWN AT RIGHT
R
NORTII CAROLINA DEPARTMENI' OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF IUGII)VAYS
* PLANNING AND ENVIRON TE, N'FAL
BRANCH
NC 150, FORSYTH COUNTY, FROM THE EXISTING
MULTI-LANE SECTION NEAR THE DAVIDSON CO.
LINE TO THE MULTI-LANE SECTION IN WINSTON-
SALEM, TIP NO. R-2709
jr
o? I I,
1Q44. ??
1!ti .ie of ?
D A V I D
-- ---- - t._._._._--_-,
5 O N
T Y
L
i
Y?
T, s ?s
9r Ss?/ O OO
zip o
to o W *f N
00 U-
00 C
o
z
Z a
=? ,•
QoF
I:z
::D ¢ uA
C3 y C? C`J
cf)
?I
?Y I ?f
o . I ! "`i`ce ?_ ?A?
{-?r1 _ I I S]
/ ? / . ?? ?l ?I ? ?•• ? r l??-\1 it • ?? • a? ?'??;?\ \ \?\?
.-1 /mar l/?? / a? .?_ ?^ ? /_ `/?. - ` II' - - • o? •\
b /
1 r ?
???t )'? l 0
I -
h W
I r
• -0? ?? ??-. I _ ?? ???? r v._
45
etYO?
7/'•?+ }, b?° ?I??) ?i sue: ?? ???n .o//??I(11?°49
-((?• o v?
3989
97*2
_
?? , ? ?? y,.`, ? '? / , X11' ? • ? t,-?? ??` ?,? ??? ?? .°J . ? ` ?,?--?sudsta? \??J'
:Im aq ork S
Tiri?k
Y ' \J
E -
3 ,• n ?y?l\ ???I?????_ ?? 3988
• ?, ? I c,;3`? ` -? li .?o?., ?? -? - ? JAS :_Q/ ? I'\??f°?? ?J??, ?: )1 /? ) >?i
??., Ic __ 3987
3 •? • SA ?" ??? ?' C \v A?? •?
°/L
I ? rl
?_
,77
3986
Go!1 Cours
o?
Q -
1? T -k '- - ?? ?(?.
29J ,
? ?? ° ? (I II ?, ? v ? a' ??;? (,? ????',? ('(-'=-• ? ? ;?r J\, %? ?2? ?? T
a985ooom.N.
• r r
o I !
J I I __ I i ?Sp" Y• ? L \\\ (? I /lam I / /S
i,Il ???,I ?? - _ f , q. ?_? ? ? < J?j? -? _.S C? ?1 3 ?? ? • ? ? ? ?c , 150 :? ? ?? ? ?I,f7 ? ? A\ -36
1730" 1 564 1565 • 05616NTERIOR--GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, RESTON, VIRGINIA 1987 8b-15
MILE ROAD CLASSIFICATION
z
Heavy-duty__ < LANE I C. LAN[
__.____ ---°•--•-•-.-- Light-duty_______-
4 LAN' I, LANG
Medium?duty__ - - - Unimproved dirt =-__-
U. S. Route 0 State Route
R-2709
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project # / Funding 8.1622901 / Federal Aid n STP-150(1)
Description NC 150, from multi-lane section near
Davidson Co. line to existing multi-
lanes in Winston-Salem
Length 2.7 miles
Division/County 9 / Forsyth
Document/Schedule Federal EA / in progress -> Mar 94
FONSI / May 94 -> Aug 94
TIP Schedule Design FFY 95
Right of Way FFY 97
Construction FFY 98
TIP Cost Estimate Right of Way $ 360,000
Construction S 4,600.000
Total $ 4,960,000
Functional Class. Rural Major Collector
Existing Cross-Section 24', w/ grass shoulders
Proposed Cross-Section 5-lane curb & gutter (64' f-f)
or
4-lane divided, w/ 30' or 46' median
Fight-of-Way 150' - existing
150' - planned
Stream Crossings (3) Muddy Creek (Bridge 't 35)
Leak Creek (unlisted culvert)
Unnamed tributary (unlisted culvert)
Current Traffic 11,300 vpd
Design Year Traffic (Awaiting estimates)
4' p,,fd_ lurY d
r ?b 0 '????
.